Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords](By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 2 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Rural White Paper

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to learn about the view of organisations with rural interests as part of the rural White Paper exercise.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): My Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to a wide range of organisations in November inviting them to submit their views. Officials are also conducting meetings with a wide range of organisations, which will include a series of regional seminars involving Ministers from both Departments. The first of these will take place next month.

Mr. Tredinnick: Has my right hon. Friend heard views expressed similar to those expressed to me by farmers in my constituency, to the effect that they are very much against the veal crate system but feel that the blame lies fairly and squarely with nations on the continent? What has he done to persuade those nations to abolish the veal crate system, which is damaging the image of British farmers?

Mr. Waldegrave: I attended the Agriculture Council meeting on Monday, where I put on the agenda the proposal that the review of the veal crate system—proposed for review in 1997—should be brought forward immediately. I am happy to say that I had widespread support for that in the Council, and the Commission will now bring forward the review.
If there had been a vote there and then in the Council, I believe that the veal crate system would have been abolished on the spot—not a single Council member spoke up for it. I am not so naive as to think that there will not now be a rearguard action from those who use the system, but we have started well. We must maintain the momentum to achieve this prize—the real prize of banning a practice that is unacceptable to farmers here and in many other parts of the European Union. It must be banned right across Europe.

Animal Welfare

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the welfare of animals prior to slaughter.

Mr. Waldegrave: We are consulting on improved standards and are introducing on 1 April 1995 the national meat hygiene service, which will result in uniform standards and lower costs.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Despite what the Minister said a few moments ago about the veal crate system, was not an answer given in the European Parliament, after his meeting in Europe, to the effect that the review will not start until at least two years hence? By that time, at least 1 million more British calves—including calves from the right hon. Gentleman's farm—will have suffered under this appalling system.
Will the Minister tell me and the British people what justification there is for any exports of live animals for slaughter—quite apart from veal calves—given modern refrigeration techniques? Is it not the will of the British people completely to ban live exports for slaughter?

Mr. Waldegrave: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I know that a Labour Member of the European Parliament told him what he has just reported about the French Minister's remarks, but I have been in touch with the French Minister's cabinet—

Mr. Skinner: What does that mean?

Mr. Waldegrave: It means Cabinet in French.
I was assured that the French Minister, Mr. Puech, had been misquoted. That can only be right, as I was present at the Council meeting where he, as president, welcomed the fact that the Commission had said that it was bringing forward the review to this year and had already spoken to the relevant committee and asked for the review to begin.

Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. Friend continue his robust efforts to achieve a Europe-wide solution to the problems of veal crates and of the transportation of live animals for slaughter to prevent English exports from being replaced by a flood of imports from former Iron Curtain countries, with animals travelling longer distances under worse conditions? What steps does he intend to take to encourage the slaughter of animals in British abattoirs and the export of meat on the hook, not on the hoof?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. There is a bigger prize than securing the improvement that we secured by banning the use of veal creates in our own very small veal trade—securing a ban right across Europe. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that if we do not do so the animals will turn up from somewhere and these practices will continue. That surely is not what we want.
I will have more to say next week on my hon. Friend's second point, but he is perfectly right to say that we can take further steps to encourage trade on the hook and to develop a humane veal trade, including the British rose veal trade. We should not seek to demonise the idea of veal eating, because humane British-raised veal is good and it avoids the need or the demand for exports.

Mr. Tyler: May I press the Minister on the latter part of his answer? In the light of recent figures given to me by the Ministry showing that the number of abattoirs in


this country has halved in the past 15 years because so many small and local abattoirs have been forced out of business, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind to try to reduce livestock journeys within the United Kingdom? What steps does he propose to take to assist the industry to encourage home slaughter and home market development?

Mr. Waldegrave: We can take a range of steps, and I shall announce some more next week. Nowhere in the United Kingdom is there not a slaughterhouse within a satisfactory distance of farms in the neighbourhood. I know that there are problems in some areas of the south-west, but if one draws circles on the graph one finds that there is no need for excessive journey times to those slaughterhouses. There are further measures that we can take—support for marketing and so on—to develop a humane trade here and alternative uses for those calves.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: As the matter has recently been raised in the House, will my right hon. Friend put on record and clarify the position concerning the restarting of the live animal export trade in 1975?

Mr. Waldegrave: With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I should like to correct one point. On 19 January, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) accused me of misleading the House. He said:
The House was thus misled by the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, West".—[Official Report, 19 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 865.]—
that is me.
The hon. Gentleman said that I misled the House by accusing the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), a former Minister, of voting to restart live animal exports, which had been stopped in 1973. [Interruption.] That is what he said—read Hansard.
Three things are wrong with that. First, the hon. Gentleman did not—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister should be given every opportunity to answer the question that he was asked, and he is now doing so.

Mr. Waldegrave: First, the hon. Gentleman did not do me the normal courtesy of warning me that he intended to raise the point and accuse me of misleading the House, but I shall let that pass. Secondly, I said no such thing. Hansard does not report me as saying anything about the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, so he is wrong on that point. Thirdly, if I had said that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East had voted to restart the trade, I would have been right.

Fruit And Vegetables

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new initiatives he has to increase the proportion of home-grown fruit and vegetables consumed in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): My right

hon. Friend and my ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote the virtues of home-grown fruit and vegetables.

Mr. Bayley: What possible justification can there be for Britain importing 17 out of every 20 items of fresh fruit and almost a quarter of the fresh vegetables that are on sale in shops? Does the Minister share my concern when he shops in any big supermarket and sees rack after rack of foreign produce? What is he doing in his discussions with the big food retailers to ensure that they boost sales of British fruit and vegetables?

Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. I held a meeting at the Ministry with all the major supermarket buyers to extol to them the virtues of buying British fruit, and I can confirm that, during the current Cox season, cheap imports from Holland were offered to supermarkets but they declined them. They are putting their money where their mouth is. The Ministry is spending at least £3 million on research into ways of extending seasons in the United Kingdom and to improve availability of home-grown produce. Our marketing development scheme and my horticultural project place a high priority on promoting our own excellent fruit and vegetables.

Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the most important home-grown vegetables is sugar beet, and the House will be aware that my hon. Friend is involved in negotiations in Europe on sugar beet quotas. I urge my hon. Friend to stand firm on behalf of all British sugar beet farmers to ensure that their quotas are not reduced.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend attended European Standing Committee A yesterday, where I hope he heard me make a robust defence of British sugar beet growers. The Government do not believe that their quotas should be reduced. Any quota reductions should be visited upon those who produce more than their domestic consumption. My right hon. Friend will robustly follow that line in the Agriculture Council.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that those who produce fruit and vegetables under glass in Britain gain nothing like the same assistance with and benefits from energy prices as their counterparts on the continent? Will he ensure that our producers get a fair crack of the whip and have a fair market for their products in Britain?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman, who represents Burnley, had better get down to the west Lancashire plain and ask growers about the innovative methods that they are employing not only to save energy but to secure it at lower prices. The old days when the Dutch had a gas subsidy are well and truly ended, and British growers are becoming adept at buying energy economically.

Environmentally Sensitive Farming

Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department is doing to encourage environmentally sensitive farming.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): We are expanding the range of schemes to


encourage environmentally sensitive farming, and next year we plan to spend more than £100 million on such schemes in the United Kingdom.

Sir Irvine Patrick: As my hon. Friend is aware, Sheffield, Hallam and Peak park are interlinked. Will she confirm that rambling is to be encouraged but that the Labour party's policy of the right to roam will damage the countryside?

Mrs. Browning: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be interested to know that, under the new countryside access scheme, which we introduced, 100 applications have been made and are being considered by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service. That will encourage the quiet use of the countryside through pursuits such as rambling and cycling on set-aside land. In the Peak parks and other such areas, we encourage responsibility among those who use and those who have stewardship of the countryside.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pays proper attention, as I believe the Department of the Environment may be doing, to the recent publication on biodiversity produced by the conservation bodies? For example, does she accept that nearly two thirds of the British skylark population has disappeared in the past 15 years or so and that such problems can be resolved only by the exercise of initiative by the Minister's Department and others?

Mrs. Browning: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will support the habitat scheme, which is now in its first year and is particularly targeted at water fringe and marshlands. I hope that that will be the start of many other such schemes with a long-term option whereby they can be extended for up to 20 years. Certain species require such continuity to ensure that they and their habitats survive.

British Food Promotion

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has further to promote British food.

Mrs. Browning: We are working closely with food exporting firms and Food from Britain on a plan for vigorous promotion of British food and drink over the next three years.

Mrs. Knight: As part of the promotion of British food abroad, will my hon. Friend undertake to point out how much tastier Stilton from Hartington in Derbyshire is than, for example, a plastic covered Dutch Edam cheese, how much more nutritious a British sausage is than a watery frankfurter and how infinitely preferable it is to eat a British Cox apple than a continental Golden Delicious, which has the texture of cotton wool?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend speaks with much justified pride about the speciality foods produced in her constituency. I am sure that we all recognise the contribution that speciality foods make not only to the

taste and quality of United Kingdom food products, but to the export drive: Food from Britain is to spend £3 million on promoting such foods abroad.

Mr. Enright: Will the Minister consider setting aside a day on which to promote Yorkshire rhubarb?

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman has set me a challenge, but I can tell him that, as a former cookery teacher, I could certainly help to support those who may wish to demonstrate the preparation of crumble, fruit compot made with rhubarb and a range of other wonderful recipes that would restore a traditional British food to its rightful place.

Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the future availability of British fish? Does she not believe that the recently published report by Sir Crispin Tickell argues strongly for the abolition of the common fisheries policy?

Mrs. Browning: In last week's debate, both my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State clearly explained that, although my right hon. Friend is establishing a committee to examine the future of the common fisheries policy, my hon. Friend's suggestion that its abolition would somehow help to promote fish stocks is quite wrong. It would, in fact, lead to a free-for-all: we should be faced with not 40 Spanish boats but 250.
I certainly believe in the promotion of fish. It contains healthy proteins, and I recommend it to hon. Members. I am told that it is good for the brain, and I particularly recommend it to my hon. Friend.

Animal Exports

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to end live animal exports from Britain.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for further regulating the export of calves for veal.

Mr. Waldegrave: At the meeting of the Agriculture Council on Monday, I succeeded in getting the Commission to bring forward a review of the directive that legalises veal crates from 1997 to this year. I was also delighted to hear the presidency say that the Council would return to the subject of improvements in the rules of live animal transportations in general at the next meeting. I hope the Council makes as good progress on the latter point as on the former.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that that simply is not good enough? The subject is being debated now because millions of people in this country and throughout Europe are appalled by the treatment of live animals during export, and want the practice to be stopped. Is it Government policy to stop the process by which live animals are exported in conditions of great cruelty and stress, and treated inhumanely?

Mr. Waldegrave: I will take the same position—a brave and sensible position—as was taken by the previous Labour Government. It would be mad to say that no animals could be exported from this country; what is necessary is to ensure that the animals that are exported are exported under tight welfare controls. If


animals could not be moved at all, some of those who are campaigning on the issue—although not the great mass of concerned people—would simply move to the next target, while farming in this country, Scotland and Wales would become impossible. A few miles of water do not mean that an animal cannot be moved safely if the proper standards are applied.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister agree with the Liberal spokesman on these matters, who viciously condemned the actions of protesters at British ports when all that they were doing was advocating what the majority of British people believe in?

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that the Liberal spokesman described the welfare protesters as "naive, hysterical and counter-productive". There is a fringe attached to this movement, as to many other sensible movements, which ruins the cause by using violence and going much too far. It would be unwise of the House and of the Liberal spokesman not to recognise that there is widespread, genuine concern about this matter, but that should not mean, as has sometimes happened in the House in the past, that we over-react and completely ruin the conditions for farming in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We must ensure proper welfare and proper enforcement. That is what we need.

Mr. Brooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in their latter stages, the previous Labour Government sought to impede debate on a private Member's Bill on live animal exports—a fact that I mention incidentally because of the indignation generated in the last Session about progress on private Member's Bills?

Mr. Waldegrave: Some such rows are fairly synthetic because I suspect that they depend on which side of the House one is on at the time. I do not think that this is a party issue, and it would be unwise for one party to claim that it has the monopoly of wisdom on it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House care about the issue. We must not be pushed by that genuine concern into such extreme measures that we make farming in Britain completely impossible.

Mr. Stephen: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the same time as the Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokesman was telling farmers that his party was not in favour of the ban on animal exports, Liberal Democrat councillors in my constituency were telling the townspeople that they were in favour of it?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Mr. David Bellotti, who was briefly a Member of the House, took a very different line from the Liberal Democrat spokesman. That is the joy of being a Liberal: one can say anything one likes in any part of the country and it does not matter at all if all the others say something different.

Dr. Strang: May I return to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Official Report of 19 January and explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was referring to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire,. West (Mr. Marland), who intervened during Prime Minister's

Questions? May I set the record straight by explaining that in 1973, on a Labour motion, which was opposed by the then Conservative Government, live animal exports were banned. I voted for that motion.
When the Labour Government took office, the O'Brien committee, which the Conservative party set up, recommended the resumption of the trade, which at that time was in live cattle and some pigs and was a very small trade. The committee recommended the resumption of the trade on the basis of increased safeguards. That was accepted not only by the Labour Government but by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have never sought to attack the hon. Gentleman on this. He seems to have taken a perfectly sensible position throughout and it is generous of him to try to protect the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). However, it would have been decent of his hon. Friend to apologise. He said:
The House was thus misled by the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)."—[Official Report, 19 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 865.]

Mr. Morley: I did not say that.

Mr. Waldegrave: That is what Hansard records. We should be making a little progress if the hon. Gentleman said that Hansard had made up and printed a whole speech for no reason that is obvious to me.

Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best scenario for calves is for them to be slaughtered in British abattoirs, thereby increasing employment prospects and adding value? The worst scenario would be an immediate and unilateral ban because that would reduce the price of small Holstein calves to nil and they would be knocked on the head straight after birth.

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that my hon. Friend is right. To change a trade such as this, which has become established, will take some time. We must, first, secure a veal crate ban. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we want to encourage the export of meat on the hook. That would create jobs and would be better in welfare terms. If we were to kill small calves on the farm immediately they were born, it would not be satisfactory in welfare terms, and would not be acceptable to the British public or to the great majority of British farmers.

Fruit And Vegetables

Mr. Hall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage the local marketing of fruit and vegetables.

Mr. Jack: The development, of local marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables is an objective of my horticulture project and of the marketing development scheme.

Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware of the increased consumer interest in direct marketing, which brings the benefits of fresh produce, often organically produced, at competitive prices? There is also a better return for producers. Will the Government emulate the United States


Government by funding research into improving direct marketing and by promoting it among consumers and producers?

Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that interesting development, as it has a particular application to rundown city areas. When my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) was Minister responsible for food, he visited the American version of what the hon. Gentleman described—the so-called "green markets" in New York. As a result of that, a project is now being undertaken in Knowsley on Merseyside and approaches are being made through the city challenge mechanism—introduced by this Government—to promote the introduction of that interesting scheme.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is well aware that in my constituency, as in his neighbouring one, horticulture is an important industry. Will he confirm that his Department will continue to support those who are trying to improve the marketing of excellent British horticultural products?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the work that we are doing. I commend to him and his growers the marketing development scheme. It has a £10 million budget over three years, it is the most flexible scheme that we have had and it is aimed at helping people in horticulture and in all branches of the food industry. It could be of benefit to the Blackpool area.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Is the Minister aware of the latest report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which exposes the absurdity of supermarkets in Scotland selling milk from Dorset or ones in Evesham selling asparagus from Spain when there is a glut of the same product locally? If not, will he read that report and then provide maximum help for initiatives such as those mentioned already, which would benefit local producers, local consumers and the environment?

Mr. Jack: I am certainly aware of the line taken in that report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks a few moments ago. We have had an extremely good response to the marketing development scheme, which is designed to do precisely what he has suggested—as is the £12 million that we have spent on horticulture research and development. In an earlier answer, I also referred specifically to extending the seasonal availability of British produce, on which we are spending a targeted amount of £3 million.

Animal Welfare

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has to improve animal welfare.

Mr. Waldegrave: We have a very wide range of measures in place.

Mr. Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate the demonstrators at the three sites for their great courage and foresight? They are in advance of public opinion and have roused the Government's conscience. Had the Government listened to Compassion in World Farming 10 years ago, the changes could have been made in an orderly way, thus avoiding the problems of sudden change now faced by farmers.
Now that the right hon. Gentleman is claiming one prize, will he go for the triple crown and move on other fronts where sentient living creatures are treated as though they have no feelings and no nervous system? Will he respond to the campaigns on other animal abuse and stop hunting for sport and unnecessary experiments on animals?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a total abuse of Question Time.

Mr. Waldegrave: Action was under way before I arrived at the Department. My right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Education was leading the way with a shift in the Government's position and a move to the vanguard of the campaign to improve transportation. That proves that action was genuinely under way.
I do not believe that anyone in the country is not now behind the movement to ban veal crates and to achieve higher standards. I am sorry to say, however—the vets are telling us this—that animals in lorries surrounded by the uproar of a demonstration suffer and often have to be put down there and then. Animal welfare is suffering from the methods being used.
I say to the demonstrators that they should go to Brussels. This may sound odd, but I was sorry to find that there were no demonstrators in Brussels on Monday. It would have been better to have support from the very powerful British non-governmental organisations to press for change where it is needed, which is in Brussels.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend point out to many of those people that there is a considerable movement of animals between Scotland and the west country and between Scotland and other parts of country, and that that movement has been undertaken sensibly for many years, with full protection for animals although those journeys are often much longer than those taken by animals exported across the channel?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not believe that the occasional abuse that takes place in this country is the source of all the concern. We have reasonable rules, which are policed. The concern is not that one cannot move an animal humanely a reasonable distance—one can. The concern is to achieve better welfare standards in Europe. That must be done by changing European law. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the whole of British farming will come to a halt. If that happened, the same people who are campaigning and complaining now would be asking what we are doing to support British farming.

Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that one of the steps that could be taken to improve animal welfare would be to introduce a licensing scheme for animal hauliers and exporters? Does he think it acceptable that exporters such as Phoenix Aviation from Coventry should operate cargo planes without proper export permits, that Hall Farms of York should continue to export animals after being prosecuted for breaking journey time regulations, or that people like Richard Otley, who is exporting sheep through Brightlingsea, who has criminal convictions for animal cruelty, and who was arrested last week for deliberately provoking and abusing local people, deliberately flouted agreements with Brittany Ferries and is associated with people convicted for violence? Incidentally, he claims to


have been approached to be a Tory candidate and to have the ear of the Prime Minister. Does the Minister agree that such people bring the livestock industry into disrepute?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, who is a decent man, did not take the opportunity to apologise. Last week he said a range of things which turned out to be not quite right, so I should like to check all his allegations closely before I comment on them.

Abattoirs

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the European rules relating to abattoirs in England and Wales; with whom he or his subordinates last discussed these at the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Browning: In the last few months of 1994, a number of discussions took place between the Commission and member states about the fresh meat directive. Organisations representing the industry were kept fully informed. Last month's Agriculture Council agreed, in principle, a number of amendments to the directive which will give small abattoirs more flexibility in their throughput.

Mr. Llwyd: I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that it is highly desirable that animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of production. With that in mind, may I urge the Minister to press for a further upward derogation of livestock units for smaller abattoirs at the next Agriculture Council?

Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have made considerable progress on behalf of small abattoirs. We shall obviously continue to consider how the new changes proceed. There are new abattoirs being built, as well as abattoirs that are having to close.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend continue to encourage the building of the new abattoirs? Will she remind Opposition Members that if the codes of practice for the rearing and slaughter of animals were introduced across Europe there would be a great advance throughout?

Mrs. Browning: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend on that: we all want high standards on an even playing field throughout the European Community.

Dairy Industry

Ms Church: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent job losses in the dairy industry.

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent job losses in the dairy industry.

Mr. Jack: The Government are contributing to that objective through their programme to improve the competitiveness of British industry and the £3.5 million that the Ministry spends annually on research and development in dairying.

Ms Church: I do not know whether the Minister has milk delivered to his doorstep, or whether he pays his own

milk bill. If he does, he will be aware of the rising price of milk delivered to the doorstep. Is he aware that Dairy Crest, which has a plant in my constituency, is having to close plants across the country as a direct result—this has been stated by the chief executive—of the Government's deregulation of the dairy industry? What do the Government have to say today about the number of jobs that have been lost in the dairy industry as a direct result of deregulation?

Mr. Jack: On the latter point, I remind the hon. Lady that the number of people employed in the dairying industry has been falling. In 1984 it was 89,500, and by 1991 it was 72,300, which shows that there has been a decline in the consumption of milk and cream products. As for the rise in the price of milk, my local dairyman has benefited to the tune of 1.5p per pint from a reduction in the levy that he paid because there is no milk marketing board to pay, so he is pleased with the changes. Finally, the industry was carrying a great deal of spare capacity; as a result of the removal of the milk marketing board, there is now better utilisation of existing capacity, to the long-term benefit of the industry.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister must be aware that Milk Marque now has a monopoly of the milk industry, and that, since the abolition of the milk marketing board cheese prices have increased substantially and continue to rise well above the rate of inflation. Is he also aware that the spot market is controlled by Milk Marque, which is exporting cheap milk from mainland Britain to keep prices high? What is he doing to help dairy producers who have to meet high costs for their raw material and whose product is undercut by the abolition of the milk marketing board, thus causing job losses in the milk marketing industry?

Mr. Jack: I am disappointed that, in his enumeration of various problems, the hon. Gentleman did not also point out some of the positive aspects of the changes that were introduced. For instance, many cheese producers used to have an on-off supply under the old arrangement, but now they can have certainty of supply. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts more carefully before accusing Milk Marque of having a monopoly in the milk industry, as companies such as Northern Food Partnership, Nestle and many other purchasers of milk would fundamentally disagree.

Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that last year British dairy farmers were penalised in comparison with their European competitors because of the way in which the butter fat in their milk was measured, which resulted in their being well above their quota? What is he doing to level the playing field?

Mr. Jack: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter, which has also been raised by a number of my local farmers. Work is under way to examine some of the variable results that have been recorded. I stress that the tests which used to be carried out by the milk marketing board and the Agricultural Development Advisory Service are both approved by the Commission.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend press the European Union to allow milk quotas to be traded across


national frontiers within the Community so that our efficient dairy farmers can obtain a higher quota and supply the milk that our processors need?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, who speaks with the knowledge gained from a farming constituency, is absolutely right. We have one of the most developed markets for the movement of surplus quota, to the benefit of all our dairy farmers, and we are campaigning for a much more flexible approach to cross-Community transferability of quota. We shall continue to pursue that objective vigorously.

Dr. Strang: Will the Minister acknowledge that, as a direct result of deregulation, creameries have closed at Stranraer, Longridge and Whitland, as well as a number of small niche English cheese makers? How much capacity and how many jobs will be lost before the Government recognise the seriousness of the situation?

Mr. Jack: Sometimes the hon. Gentleman's synthetic rage overwhelms me. If he is truly concerned about the future of jobs in the dairy industry, perhaps he will join me in reviewing the claim for increased wages—above the rate of inflation—made by trade unions representing the dairy trade. They asked for two extra days holiday, a reduction in the working week, increases in weekend premiums and night rate allowances and—believe it or not—the setting up of a pan-European social partnership committee. Is that the way to safeguard jobs in the dairy industry?

Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the President of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend the Minister regularly meets representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them.

Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers in my constituency—[Interruption.]—are concerned about reports of black market trading in milk? Will he give an assurance that vigourous action will be taken against anyone indulging in such practices?

Mr. Jack: The importance of my hon. Friend's question was clearly acknowledged by cheers from the Labour Benches. I can certainly assure him that the intervention board is taking seriously the information that has come to hand about black market trading in milk. The fraud line which has been established has already received more than 100 calls on the matter. The investigations are complex, but they are being carried out with vigour.

Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware that, under the Milk Marque regime, a farmer who leases his quota must have his documents approved by the intervention board before they can be passed on to the quota broker and that that is currently taking two months whereas under the milk marketing boards it used to be done in a week? As it is causing a great deal of hardship for farmers, will the Minister look into the matter and see what can be done to speed up the process?

Mr. Jack: I can do one better than that for the hon. Member: I have already been down to the .intervention board to investigate the situation. It is true that there were

delays towards the end of last year. The only remaining documents to be processed are those related to the extension for lease transfers that we gave to the end of the year. All other matters are now up to date, and a good level of service can be expected.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Spellar: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Spellar: Does the Prime Minister think that Cedric Brown of British Gas is worth his huge pay increase—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: I think that is a matter for the shareholders.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since his answer in this House on Tuesday, public bewilderment and, indeed, outrage over the fate of Private Clegg has increased? Will he give the House an assurance that he and his Ministers will do all in their power to bring this injustice to a speedy end?

The Prime Minister: I set out the position in the House on Tuesday and how that should be developed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have to consider any new evidence put to him and decide first whether that is sufficient to warrant a further reference to the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, the proper procedures—which I outlined at length on Tuesday and, with my hon. Friend's permission, will not repeat—have now begun.

Mr. Blair: What does it tell us about the Prime Minister's Government when his Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") Conservative Members may agree with that, but precious few people in the country do. [Interruption.] There they are—the Tory yobboes. What does it tell us when the Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more—

Mr. David Shaw: Your pay has doubled. What about barristers and wives' earnings?

Madam Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to order on many occasions before. I shall not be so lenient in future.

Mr. Blair: What does it tell us, when the Prime Minister's Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more and that Back-Bench Members of Parliament should have more directorships and consultancies, while at the self-same time the same Social Security Minister is introducing a law that will savage mortgage protection for the unemployed?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is taking a very puritanical view, in view of the number of special interests that so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have, including a number of his hon. Friends on


the Front Bench. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there is a proper procedure for setting ministerial salaries and the salaries of Members of this House. It is based on a widely accepted formula, it has been approved by this House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely happy with that formula.

Mr. Blair: Is it sensible to cut mortgage protection when home owners are already facing rising interest rates and cuts in mortgage tax relief? Do the Prime Minister and his party not understand that we shall never build a strong and prosperous Britain by deliberately passing laws designed to make our people weak and insecure?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten the policy commitments of his own party. For example, in view of what he has just said, he may have forgotten that on MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source—one of the Labour party's own policy groups threatened to abolish the allowance entirely The right hon. Gentleman clearly belongs to that species of politician which believes that the facts are for bending whenever convenient.
With regard to mortgages, the right hon. Gentleman should be aware that the drop in mortgages from their peak, as a result of our economic policies—[Interruption.] The drop in costs from their peak since interest rates have been falling is £140 a week. If the policies on borrowing and spending that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind were carried out, mortgages would go straight back up by —140 a week.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fairer and more reasonable approach that we shall now receive from the Child Support Act 1991, the purpose of which was never in doubt, but the application of which caused very considerable concerns?

The Prime Minister: There has never been any doubt about the principle that parents should support their own children, provided that they are able to do so. That principle is accepted widely in this House and beyond. The changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has now put in place will enable the agency to work in the manner that we would all wish to see.

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacShane: The Prime Minister is well known as a fan of the Commonwealth and a supporter of India. He will therefore know Gandhi's dictum that there is enough in the world for everyone's need, but not enough for

everyone's greed. I have that written here; if I give it to the Prime Minister framed, will he put it on the wall in the boardroom of No. 10 Downing street?

The Prime Minister: I think that everyone who heard that intervention, and the millions who may have watched it on television, will form their own judgment of its value.

Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Worcester Royal Infirmary trust on the significant improvement in the health care that it is delivering in my constituency? That is a tribute to the health care reforms, to the resources that the Government are making available and to the dedication and professionalism of all the trust's staff. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to continue those improvements is by the early construction of a new district general hospital, using the private finance initiative?

The Prime Minister: I am very pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the excellent health services provided in Worcester. That is mirrored in many places across the country. Private finance certainly offers a cost-effective way of funding new hospitals and new developments. It is entirely right to explore that.

Mr. Radice: As there is not to be a statement to the House today, will the Prime Minister confirm that the White Paper on the civil service proposes a civil service code and an independent appeals system and that it keeps open the Government's mind about whether those should be backed by statute? Does he agree that the Government's adoption of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's constitutional agenda is a vindication of the Select Committee system?

The Prime Minister: I think that there is very wide support for the Select Committee system across the House and beyond it. The White Paper will command the very broad respect and support of hon. Members across the House on the points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and on several others.

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are about to place orders for support helicopters for the Royal Air Force? As the two contenders—the Boeing Chinook and the Westland EH101—meet the specifications required by the Ministry of Defence, does he agree that a mixed fleet solution would best provide for the needs of our armed forces and also be best for British industry as it would improve the already good prospects for the sale of the Westland EH101 helicopter in overseas markets both in its civil version and in the many military versions that will become available?

The Prime Minister: Negotiations with the companies concerned in relation to support helicopters are still


continuing. I hope that we will be able to make a decision as soon as possible, but all the information upon which to base that decision is not yet available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear in the past the potential advantages of a mixed fleet to meet the Army's requirements for support helicopters. Of course, that will be borne carefully in mind when we are in a position to make a final decision.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as it is now over six months since The Sunday Times exposed the illegal activities of the so-called noble Lord Archer, Conservative peer—insider-dealing activities in Anglia shares—and in so far as it is quite clear that it is utterly impossible successfully to prosecute what we all know to be criminal activity, is there now going to be a review of the law in this area? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the last part of his question. He must not use that language and thus associate this House and all of us with what he has just said. I must ask him to withdraw it or rephrase it, please. [Interruption.] Order. Leave it to me. Will the hon. Gentleman please rephrase what he has just said?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As against what?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has associated all of us in this House. I heard it very clearly myself. I ask the hon. Gentleman to rephrase. I heard the words very clearly. [Interruption.] Order. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a moment to reflect. I am sure that he will do as I ask.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I always defer to you, Madam Speaker, as you would know. I refer to what many believe to be criminal activity, but in my view it is unacceptable activity.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make those criticisms, I must now ask him to withdraw his remarks and to put them in an orderly substantive motion. I am asking him to rephrase what he has just said; otherwise I must ask him to leave this House for the remainder of this day's sitting.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I believe that it is criminal activity, and I will leave. I will leave the Chamber voluntarily.

Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to widen the remit of the Nolan committee to examine sleaze in the media? Does he not find it unacceptable that three television executives, Mr. Greg Dyke, Mr. Barry Cox and Mr. Melvyn Bragg, should pretend to be objective in setting the agenda while they bankrolled the leadership campaign for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? As First Lord of the Treasury—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down. I have.just brought one hon. Gentleman to order and dealt with him. I intend

to do the same in future with any Member who behaves in that way. There are perfectly respectable ways of putting questions in this House. I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to do that; otherwise he must now sit down.

Mr. Butcher: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, but there may be a distinction between what I am asserting and what the gentleman—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will determine whether there is a distinction. The hon. Gentleman can put a substantive motion on the Order Paper if he is going to assert that. Will the hon. Gentleman re-think his question, or shall I call someone else?

Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standards now being asserted as required of Members of this House on the sleaze question should also be applied to those in the media who may seek to influence events by means which should not be in their repertoire?

The Prime Minister: I think, Madam Speaker, that there would be a general wish for high standards in every aspect of public life, whether those concerned are elected or not.

Mr. Olner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Olner: Is the Prime Minister aware of the strong public feelings in regard to the animal welfare movement, especially in connection with the live transportation of animals for slaughter? Will he talk to his colleagues about giving parliamentary time to my private Member's Bill, which seeks to make the practice unlawful? Does he agree that it is far better for our excellent British livestock to be exported on the hook than to endure the treacherous and hazardous journeys on the hoof to which they are currently subjected?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I made precisely the same point about the preference for export on the hook rather than on the hoof three or four Question Times ago. Beyond that, as he will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is making considerable progress, especially on veal crates in Europe. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend clearly has the hon. Gentleman's support.

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important thing in local government is high standards of competence? Does he also agree that the gaff has been blown on the Labour party's activities in local government by the McKinstry memorandum?

The Prime Minister: That was certainly an enlightening document to read, and I hope that it will have wide circulation. When the hon. Member for Durham,


North (Mr. Radice) asked a question some time ago he said that if we wanted to know how Labour would look in government we should look at how it runs local councils.

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the conversion of many of his Conservative

colleagues to an interest in miscarriages of justice? Will he also join me in hoping that that interest will extend to people who are not members of the Parachute Regiment, such as the three innocent people in the 18th year of their sentences for the Carl Bridgewater murder?

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to comment on the particular case; I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it has been examined from time to time. On a more general point, I assure him that my hon. Friends are as concerned as he is to ensure that justice is faithfully and truthfully carried out.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House please announce the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 30 JANUARY—Completion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 31 JANuARY—Opposition Day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "The threat to the existence of the NHS resulting from Government policies" on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
WEDNESDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the English revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations and the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Transitional) Regulations.
That will be followed by a debate on the allocation of the 1995–96 science budget on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 1 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Committee A, EC document No. 8958/94 relating to recording equipment in road transport; Committee B, EC document No. 4075/94, relating to agreement on social policy; EC document No. 6230/94, relating to the establishment of European committees for informing and consulting employees; and EC document No. 9069/94, relating to European social policy.

[Wednesday 1 February:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 8958/94, relating to recording equipment in road transport. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 48-xxvii (1993–94).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 4075/94, relating to agreement on social policy; (b) 6230/94, relating to informing and consulting employees (European Works Council); (c) 9069/94, relating to European social policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a) HC 48-vii (1993–94) and HC48-xxvi (1993–94); (b) HC 48-xx (1993–94) and HC 48-xxvi (1993–94); (c) HC 48-xxvi (1993–94), HC 70-i (1994–95); and HC 70-iv (1994–95).

Floor of the House—English revenue support grant reports. The relevant reports are as follows:
Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96; Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1995–96; Special Grant Report (No. 12).]
In the following week, on Monday 6 February, I hope to set down for Second Reading the Agricultural Tenancies Bill [Lords], and I hope to take a number of orders on either Tuesday or Wednesday. On Thursday 9

February, I expect to provide for a debate on the White Paper on the future of the BBC on a motion for the Adjournment.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Does he realise that there is concern that the House will be debating the English revenue support grant reports on Wednesday, but that the relevant documentation will not be available until Monday, leaving inadequate time for Members to be briefed as fully as they would wish?
Will the Leader of the House consider also an issue of greater concern? Will he look again at the business for Thursday and, in particular, the regulations on incapacity benefit? He will be aware that Ministers have acknowledged that those regulations are inadequate, and therefore defective, in that they do not cover how the new Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act will affect people who have mental health problems. Much concern has been expressed about a move towards enabling legislation generally, and it is difficult for the House to be put in the position of being asked to agree to regulations next Thursday when we know that the regulations will have to be amended and debated again at a later date.
When do the Government intend to find time for a debate on the civil service on the Floor of the House, not least because—as was pointed out during Prime Minister's questions—the Government have today published their response to the Select Committee report and the consultations on the White Paper by means of a written answer? The House would wish to know when there is likely to be a proper debate on that issue.
Finally, instead of the flawed regulations that are down for debate on Thursday, could we have a debate on the cuts in the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales? Those cuts are serious, and there is widespread concern that the Countryside Commission will not be able to meet its obligations under the biodiversity convention or the European habitat and species directive. The concern has now led to speculation that there are about to be elements of privatisation involved in the matter, which could include the privatisation of Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons.

Mr. Newton: Taking those points in order, I shall certainly look into the point that the hon. Lady raised about the documentation in relation to the revenue support grant orders. I say that without making a commitment to make a change, but obviously if I can accelerate the arrival of the information in any way, I shall be glad to do so. I would not wish to encourage expectation that I could postpone the debate that is planned for Wednesday, but I shall be as helpful as I can in respect of the documentation.
The hon. Lady's second point related to the incapacity for work regulations. I understand that they have been discussed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but there are problems of the kind to which the hon. Lady alluded. I would not want to make a snap judgment on the action that I shall take, but—I hope that the hon. Lady accepts this as being in good faith—I shall certainly undertake to look into the matter and undertake further consultation through the usual channels should that seem appropriate.
I shall bear in mind the hon. Lady's request for a civil service debate. She went on to make a tendentious suggestion for what might take the place of the debate on the incapacity for work regulations should any action be taken in that respect. Even with all the good will that I have tried to put into my first three answers, I do not think that I could promise a debate on a matter which, in my view, she has overstated and, to some extent, mis-stated.

Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. Friend find time to allow the House to debate the rules and regulations governing the consultation procedures between airports and those who live around them? Is he aware that Manchester airport recently had a change in its standard instrument departure route, better known to my constituents as the flight path? That has meant that a number of people now have planes flying over their houses which have not done so in the past. It seems that, under the present consultation procedures, everybody was consulted apart from those who now have planes flying over their houses. Will my right hon. Friend find time to allow a debate on that matter?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise to find time to allow the matter to he debated, but I can promise to bring my hon. Friend's point, which was new to me, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 494, which has now been signed by more than 100 hon. Members?
[That this House notes that 29th January 1995 is the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp; joins in mourning the millions of victims of Nazism who died there and in other such death camps; sends its greetings to the survivors, their relatives and the world leaders who are gathering in Poland to commemorate the liberation; and joins with the Jewish people and all other sufferers from Nazism in its determination to ensure that the memory of the past will be a beacon to the future and that there will never be another Holocaust.]
As tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should allow some time for the House to join in mourning the victims of Nazism who died there—people of all faiths—and to join world leaders, the leaders of Jewish communities and other survivors and sufferers who are gathered in Poland to commemorate that event, to show that we shall not forget the past and ensure that there is no future holocaust?

Mr. Newton: While I am not able to do exactly as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, I hope that the very fact that he raised that matter and enabled me to endorse the feelings that we all have at the time of this anniversary about the events uncovered at that time, will be a mark of the respect that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to pay to those who suffered in the camps. I think that the whole House will be pleased that Lord

Jakobovits, the former Chief Rabbi, is representing the Queen at the official Polish ceremony and the later Jewish ceremony in respect of those events.

Sir Irvine Patnick: May we have an urgent debate in view of the article in The Spectator on 21 January entitled, "This won't wash", which is also known as the McKinstry report, so that the electorate may be made aware of what a Labour Government could, or would, be like?

Mr. Newton: Having read the article with increasing astonishment at the author, but increasing recognition of what was described, I am once more much tempted by a debate and shall certainly keep that thought in mind.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House accept that the changes to the Child Support Agency announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security on Monday were welcome, as far as they went? Does he also acknowledge that much uncertainty still exists about the consequences of those changes for families? When does he expect to introduce legislation to give effect to those amendments, and will he assure the House that, when he does so, we shall have an opportunity to consider the Child Support Act in its first principles?

Mr. Newton: There are two points. First, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when the Bill will be introduced, but we shall try to do so as rapidly as possible and work to that end is very much in train, as I well know. A number of illustrative examples of the workings of the proposed new arrangements, in comparison with existing arrangements, were published at the time of the White Paper. I hope that they will have been helpful to many families involved. On the latter part of the question, the scope of the debate will clearly be related to the scope of the Bill and, since I do not have that, I would be very unwise to give the hon. Gentleman any specific undertakings.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I remind my right hon. Friend that this weekend marks not only the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, but the 1,000th day of the siege of Sarajevo, which shows that evil has not passed from this world? Will he take this opportunity to salute the courage and dignity of the citizens of Sarajevo? May I draw his attention to early-day motion 468, which marks that occasion?
[That this House salutes the citizens of Sarajevo, as they mark 1,000 days of seige, for the courage and dignity with which they have withstood devastations and privations no civilised community should be called upon to bear; expresses its profound regret that none of the institutions of the international community have been able effectively to deter the aggression of those Bosnian Serbs who accept the leadership of Radovan Karadic; believes it is essential that such aggression should not be rewarded and that what the Mayor of Sarajevo has recently referred to as 'the exceptional and unique charms of multiculturalism', of which the city has been such a shining example, are not allowed to perish; and urges Her Majesty's Government to give whatever support it can to ensure that Sarajevo survives as an open and united city and capital of an independent nation.]
May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 450, which deals with the situation in Chechnya?
[That this House, whilst recognising that Chechnya has for many years been part of the Russian Federation and that it is entirely acceptable for any legitimate government of a nation state to assert its authority over those who unilaterally seek to declare their independence, nevertheless believes that such action should never include the indiscriminate slaughter of a civilian population and the wanton destruction of their homes; considers that those who take such action should not expect their conduct to go unchallenged; accordingly denounces the action taken by Russian troops in Chechnya as being a gross violation of the standards of behaviour acceptable in a civilised society; contends that those who ordered such action have also violated the principles of the Helsinki agreements and forfeited the moral authority to be accepted as the sole arbiters of the fate of the Chechen people; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to refer recent events in Chechnya to the Security Council of the United Nations and to urge that a code of internationally acceptable conduct for resolving internal disputes within nations, which gives neither encouragement to rebellion nor approval to genocide, be agreed.]
Do not those two events illustrate the need for an early debate on foreign affairs?

Mr. Newton: I join my hon. Friend in his comments about the people of Sarajevo and in his awareness of the situation in Chechnya. Once again, I am not in a position to promise a debate at this moment, but I shall, as ever, bear my hon. Friend's thoughts in mind.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Wednesday's business at 2 o'clock, on the Libyan sanctions and Lockerbie, may I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given both his office and the private secretary to the Foreign Secretary notice? Before that debate, can the Government confirm or deny their view of the reports that emanate from the air intelligence unit of the department of the United States air force, to the effect that Ali Akbar Mostahemi, former Iranian Minister of the Interior at the time of the shooting down of the Vincennes and later ambassador to Damascus between 1982 and 1985, paid $10 million in gold and cash with the purpose of boxing—to use the American expression—Pan Am 103?

Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. As he will probably be aware, since I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is answering two questions on this subject this afternoon; and as the hon. Gentleman—I am glad to say—has secured an Adjournment debate next Wednesday to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes personally to reply, the hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not think it appropriate to go into his question this afternoon.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend consider early-day motion 329?
[That this House welcomes the theme marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, namely, We, the peoples, united for a better world; appreciates that this hope for a better world can be realised only if the successor generation is involved now; welcomes the Council for Education in World Citizenship's non-partisan work over more than 50 years supporting education for international understanding and

responsibility among young people and their teachers; recognises that current proposals to phase out the funding for the Council for Education in World Citizenship would put at risk the continuation of the work of the Council for Education in World Citizenship; and calls on the Government to strengthen its support for the Council for Education in World Citizenship to enable the Council to increase its valuable work through schools and colleges.]
The motion concerns the Council for Education in World Citizenship. Would it be possible to include that subject in a foreign affairs debate; or perhaps to obtain a statement from the Department for Education on whether it can find more funding so that our young people can be made aware of world issues such as Bosnia, the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the concentration camps and other such events, to show that, the world is not always a benign place?

Mr. Newton: I cannot offer further funds for that excellent work, but I certainly hope that it will continue to be well supported. Were there to be a debate on foreign affairs, I would of course bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: May we have a debate as soon as possible on employment conditions, so that we may discuss this week's figures, which reveal that workers in Britain work longer hours than their counterparts in any other country in the European Community? Uniquely in the Community, British working hours have been increasing over the past decade. The Government's policy is to have huge numbers of people unemployed at the same time as making those in jobs work ever longer hours. Does not that suggest a Government of unique economic incompetence?

Mr. Newton: That is one of the silliest questions I have heard for some time. I have not yet seen the report, but I understand that much of the increase in hours is due to increased overtime being worked. Those gaining from the overtime may not welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. If the statistics that he cites prove anything, they show why we have one of the most successful economies in Europe.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the spending policies of the Labour-Liberal-controlled Kent county council, which has brought the county to financial ruin and anarchy? Will he also take steps to point out to the Secretary of State for Education the fact that the Kent chief education officer is behaving more like a politician than a responsible public servant?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's remarks seem to tie in remarkably well with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) about the need for a debate on a recent article in The Spectator. Should it prove possible to stage such a debate, it is clear that my hon. Friend could make a fruitful contribution to it.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Will the Leader of the House give us a debate, or at least arrange for a statement from the relevant Minister, on the severe weather conditions of the past 24 hours in the north of England, particularly in West Yorkshire? Tragically, there have been about six deaths, and 5,000 people have been stranded on the M62. What action do the Government


intend to take to support the local authorities and other organisations that will need to spend money following those tragic events? There is sometimes a feeling in the north that, just because it is the north, it does not get the attention that it deserves.

Mr. Newton: On the last point—whether or not that is believed—I would resist any such suggestion. On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, every hon. Member, whether he is from the south, the north or any other part of the country, and on both sides of the House, would wish to express sympathy at the situation faced by so many people in the area to which he referred. I shall, of course, bring his request that the matter be considered to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on early-day motion 403?
[That this House, whilst appreciating the appeal of hormone replacement therapy to many women, strongly urges the Canadian Government not to enforce a humane code on the country's 485 pregnant mares' urine business farms which produce materials for use in HRT by cruel methods and then to eliminate these farms altogether in favour of the production of synthetically produced hormones, thus obviating unnecessary suffering by horses as well as meeting demands for this drug.]
The motion draws the attention of the House to the brutal way in which hormone replacement therapy materials are obtained from mares in Canada—

Mr. Nigel Evans: Where is Teresa?

Mr. Greenway: I know that HRT benefits some people—they think so, anyhow.
As HRT can be obtained more efficiently by synthesis, may we debate that early-day motion, with a view to seeking to influence the Canadian Government?

Mr. Newton: That, perhaps, is a subject that my hon. Friend might wish to bear in mind for the productive area of our new Wednesday morning debates. I do not think that I can provide time for a debate, but I welcome the fact that the Canadian Government have recently revised the code governing the treatment of those horses, and that all farms currently satisfy relevant guidelines. I very much hope that that is the case.

Ms Jean Corston: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or—at the very least—a statement on the rules of procedure governing the placing of advertisements by or on behalf of Ministers? I refer particularly to an advertisement in yesterday's edition of The Guardian, headed
Ending discrimination against disabled people",
which is described as being issued on behalf of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. It was the day after the Disability Discrimination Bill received its Second Reading and before the House had formally submitted the Bill to scrutiny in Standing Committee for consideration or amendment. Surely the Government

spend a small fortune as it is on news manipulation, news management and public relations. How can such expenditure possibly be justified?

Mr. Newton: I have not seen the advertisement and will bring the hon. Lady's comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to allow time for a debate on possible changes to the quarantine regulations? Is he aware that the Select Committee on Agriculture produced a lengthy report with certain recommendations, and that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rejected those recommendations? In view of the fact that there is wide interest in the subject, is not it appropriate that the House should debate the recommendations rather than leave it at that?

Mr. Newton: I saw the Select Committee's response, and my right hon. Friend made it clear that he shared many of its concerns, especially its determination to maintain effective safeguards, for example, against rabies. I cannot immediately promise a debate, but will bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in the past few months, quite a number of contracts have been handed out by British Coal to various firms, under the privatisation of the coal industry? Will he arrange for a statement to be made by a Minister next week in view of the fact that there is a lot of consternation about the contract that has been handed out to Mr. R.J. Budge—a contract that was reduced by £100 million after the initial bid made? It is based on a very shaky financial base and many people are worried about whether that contract can be sustained in an industry that can be beset by geological difficulties, as well as anything else. Can a statement be made about the financial problem that might well arise in the coal industry because of that contract?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a statement, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will examine the hon. Gentleman's remarks with care.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that quite a number of Conservative Members would appreciate an early debate on the civil service, particularly as we now learn that a written answer is to be published in Hansard later today, outlining some of the Government's response to the recent Select Committee report? As I served on that Select Committee and heard all the evidence, I wonder whether he is aware that some of us believe that there are strong grounds already for a fully fledged new civil service code with statutory backing. Will he consider that carefully before such a debate?

Mr. Newton: Having now had requests for a debate from both sides of the House, I shall consider them with even greater care.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a debate on student financial support? Is he aware that Durham university in my constituency is regarded as one of the most affluent universities in Britain, yet many


students there face great difficulties, particularly mature students who had their grants stopped under the recent Budget announcement? Such a debate is important so that the House can express its feelings towards those students, many of whom are now troubled by the fact that they may not be able to continue their courses at the university. In addition, the prospect of financial difficulties may stop youngsters going into higher education.

Mr. Newton: I should preface my remarks by saying that, despite somewhat similar suggestions over quite a long period now, there has, nevertheless, continued to be a large increase in the numbers going into higher and further education, something that we all welcome. However, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend find time at an early date for one of the traditional annual single-service days in order to give right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to debate the merits of locating the Army Chaplain school at Royal Air Force Amport house alongside the Naval Chaplain school, which is co-located with the Royal Air Force at Amport house, to their mutual advantage?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's representations on a particular point that might be covered in such a debate. More generally, of course I shall be looking at an appropriate time for the debate that my hon. Friend has in mind, but I cannot make any precise predictions about the date at the moment.

Mr. Max Madden: As we recall the horrors of the holocaust, will the Leader of the House provide Government time so that we can debate the menace of today's Nazis? Such a debate would enable us to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the activities of organisations such as Combat 18 and the British National party, which are indivisible and are publishing stickers in West Yorkshire and elsewhere saying:
National socialism lives on! Combat 18.
They are publishing a post office box number for the British National party on a sticker calling for "Rights for whites". That would enable the Attorney-General to instruct the police forces to take urgent action against those organisations and, at the very least, to close down box numbers that are being used to promote racial hatred throughout Britain.

Mr. Newton: I share the hon. Gentleman's distaste for the material that he has brought to our attention and the comments that he reports as having been made in it. But I take his question really to be a request that the Attorney-General should look at his suggestion and I shall ensure that that is done.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I read an article this morning in the Daily Mail concerning Alastair Campbell, the Labour party's media guru, in which it was said that he thought that the report from the independent schools unit, which inspected his children's school, was useful. I remember that the Opposition fought strenuously against the establishment of that organisation. Therefore, would it not be useful for us to have an early debate on education, so that we can discuss the sort of. information which we are now giving to parents and which we shall

give to parents in the future, and so that they can make proper judgments about the sort of education that their children are receiving?

Mr. Newton: It is increasingly clear that such a debate would be useful, if only to demonstrate that so many members of the Labour Front-Bench team and prominent persons connected with them find our education policies so useful.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), may we have an early statement by the Lord Advocate to the Scottish Grand Committee, bearing in mind the fact that hon. Members have had no opportunity to question any Lord Advocate during the entire 16 years of this Tory Government, and the pressing need for the present Lord Advocate to explain any Crown Office involvement in the scandalous cover-up of information relating to those responsible for the Lockerbie bombing?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, he has secured an Adjournment debate on the matter, which will take place on Wednesday. Perhaps the appropriate course is to wait and see what is said in that debate.

Mr. John Sykes: In view of the extraordinary behaviour of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) this afternoon, I wonder whether—

Madam Speaker: Order. When an action has been taken in the House, it is totally forgotten and is water under the bridge. I do not want to hear it referred to again.

Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to you for explaining that, Madam Speaker. In that case, may we have a debate on parliamentary privilege so that we can discuss the fact that many Opposition Members who have legitimate business interests are frightened of registering them in the Register of Members' Interests because of the Labour party Gestapo? That suggests to me that there are many abuses of privilege, and that they are not all located on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Newton: I hesitate to try to arrange such a debate now, not least because, as Chairman of the current Privileges Committee, I might find it somewhat difficult to take part in it. No doubt my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted by the Opposition Front Bench and other Opposition Members.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision relating to the regulations on incapacity for work, which are to be debated next week? The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments examined the regulations and found that the information in them was correct; the information in amending measures may also be correct, but the Committee thinks it unhelpful to those who must read such regulations if a series of amendments is made and all the information cannot be read together.
Would it not be much better for the House, and certainly for the general public, if the material were replaced by a version containing all the necessary


information, rather than our having two versions, which—although correct in themselves—could well mislead the general public?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman referred to my "decision", but I believe that what I said to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—I suspect that she would agree—was that I undertook to consider the points that she raised. I shall also consider the hon. Gentleman's elaboration of those points.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confer with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, with a view to the Government's withdrawing the regulations governing the transition from invalidity to incapacity benefit and substituting a new set of regulations that would treat at least some of those who will lose as a result of the current plans more favourably? I refer particularly to those over the age of 55.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has progressed from what might be called the technicalities and procedural difficulties on which the previous two questions focused, and asks me to undertake a revision of policy as well. That goes rather further than I am able to go.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: May we have a debate, or at least a statement, enabling the House to consider the parameters of discretion being exercised by the Secretary of State for the Environment in his dealings with audits of local authorities?
The Leader of the House will know that the Secretary of State has so far refused to order an extraordinary audit of Westminster city council, although such an audit was ordered for both Lambeth and Liverpool. The auditor in Westminster is now finding that the continuing allegations are banking up and need to be dealt with; but they cannot be dealt with without the necessary mechanism. That is destroying Westminster city council's ability to clean out the stables and get on with its business, and it is damaging the reputation of local government throughout the land.

Mr. Newton: I understand that the proceedings in the wake of last year's controversies involving Westminster are still continuing. I think that it would be appropriate for us to see how those proceedings turn out before taking the action suggested by the hon. Gentleman; but I shall of course ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment knows of his representations.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we have a debate next week on the central administration of local education authorities and the need for those administrations to reduce their spending in line with the money that grant-maintained schools take with them to local decision making? During that debate, we could raise the case of Kent, where parents have voted overwhelmingly for 88 schools to become grant-maintained. However, Kent county council, which is run by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, has failed proportionately to reduce its spending on central administration. Despite a 2 per cent. increase in Government grant to Kent county council, that has led for the first time to school budgets being cut by 1 per cent.

Mr. Newton: If my hon. Friend is asking for a debate, it occurs to me that the points that he made, which link

to those made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) appear, subject to your ruling, Madam Speaker, to be fairly directly relevant to Wednesday's debate.

Mr. John Heppell: I understand that the Government are at present compiling a short list of applications for the European Union urban fund, and that they plan to exclude from the list any city with objective 2 status. As that would have considerable implications for my constituency, which has the highest unemployment in the east midlands, and for the city of Nottingham, which has failed in its bid for single regeneration budget money, could we have a debate next week or at least at some time before the short list of applications is finalised?

Mr. Newton: I shall bring those points to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I again ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the takeover bid involving Northern Electric, in respect of the possible insider dealing that goes on at the moment, and on the Swiss banking company that is now buying shares in Yorkshire Electricity? There seems to be something really funny going on. Let us have a debate and have the matter out in the open.

Mr. Newton: We have another set of suggestions on which I plainly cannot comment, but which I am sure will be studied by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Could there be a statement next week about the escape of a prisoner, James Moore, from Everthorpe prison? I understand that his escape was noticed only when his wife rang up to ask for him. He was otherwise engaged: he was certainly not tied up.

Mr. Newton: I am left in some difficulty in finding a suitable answer to that. I do not think that I can match the hon. Gentleman's question and shall have to fall back on the fact that, as he well knows, there are a number of inquiries going on into recent events in various prisons.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Is it possible to have a debate or at least a statement on the revelations following the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme last night about sewage discharges into our environment and especially into our seas? It was revealed that in certain samples viral content was 2,000 times higher than the present safety level. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the issue is urgent, particularly for coastal areas that depend not just on fishing for shellfish but on tourism? There is obviously a failure by the privatised water companies to tackle that serious problem.

Mr. Newton: I did not see the programme, but I suspect that, as on other occasions and not particularly with regard to the hon. Gentleman, the last part of his question is a gross over-simplification. Those problems have certainly not arisen since privatisation. Some of the problems that sometimes cause difficulty in the House


arise from high expenditure in seeking to tackle such problems. The hon. Gentleman certainly need not doubt the Government's determination to tackle them.

Mr. James Clappison: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on early-day motion 473, on the politics of gender?
[That this House agrees with the Archdeacon of York that 'Political correctness is verbal fascism and when it is applied to matters religious it is as much destructive of the values and ideas of the faith as it is of the sensitivities of the believer'; regrets that feminists have never understood that 'Man' comes directly from the Latin `manus', meaning hand, indicating that man is the only species that can manipulate or manufacture, and that Man means in effect an animal that can use its hands and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contemporary and contrived politics of gender.]
Such a debate would give the House an opportunity to examine Opposition proposals for a devolved Scottish Parliament that would contain 50 per cent. women. We could also examine how that could be arranged and whether it is intended that it should also apply to the proposed English regional assemblies. Could my right hon. Friend consider timing the debate to coincide with commemorating the 20th anniversary of the election of a woman as leader of a political party in this country, so as to recognise that only the Conservative party has had a woman leader? In view of last year's events in the Labour party, it seems that this is the only party in which it is possible for a woman to rise to the top.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend welded together a number of interesting, ingenious and attractive suggestions for debate. Perhaps they might be linked with an earlier request for a debate arising from the article in The Spectator. Of course I shall bear that very much in mind.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for a statement to be made early next week on the way in which Ministers leave the Cabinet and, after a very short period, go into the private sector—often joining companies such as Rothschild, which was involved in a privatisation that was the responsibility of a Department of which the ex-Minister was head at the time?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what has happened recently just reinforces the belief in the country about sleaze and how ex-Tory Ministers do very well when they leave Cabinet? A statement is absolutely necessary—indeed, many of us would like legislation to deal with that issue.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes the sort of point that I must simply accept has become familiar from him. He will not for a moment expect me to accept the thrust of what he said. The Government have set up a wide-ranging commission—Lord Nolan's committee—to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) gave evidence yesterday. I am content to leave that committee to examine those matters.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Leader of the House may recall that, in the recent debate on selection, I drew attention to the fact that the Government hold 321 of the 651 seats in the House, yet they command 10 of the 18 votes that we possess in the Council of Europe. Does the right hon. Gentleman continue to regard that as

fair? What steps will he take to ensure that not only the British delegation but our colleagues from other countries recognise that Britain acts in a responsible manner in apportioning seats on that deputation and others?

Mr. Newton: When the hon. Gentleman raised the matter before, I told him that I would bring it to the attention of those responsible for making the relevant appointments. I shall check up on the position and get in touch with him.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) in urging my right hon. Friend to arrange a debate on education? The large amount of education legislation that we have taken through the House has always been vigorously opposed by the Opposition. I, for one, am glad to note that it is now part of Labour party policy. If we were to have a debate, perhaps Labour Members would go just that one step further and welcome grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Newton: I have already referred to that matter. I do not think I can add anything else, other than to say that with every point made, such a debate becomes an increasingly attractive prospect.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There are currently two Bills before the House dealing with discrimination against disabled people. It is generally known that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will apply to 6.5 million people—one in every 10. May we have a statement on how wide the application of the Government's Bill will be, as we were not told that during its Second Reading? Will it apply to one in 10, one in 100, one in 1,000 or one in a million—if that person happens to be lucky?
Is not the advertisement referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) misleading in its claim that the Government's Bill applies to education, when almost no local education authority could operate such a measure? We should be told of the numbers of people in education to whom the Bill will apply. My Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would apply to everyone in education.

Mr. Newton: The Government's Bill was debated extensively on Tuesday. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman spoke extensively in that debate. I see no reason to doubt that the proposals in the Bill, which cover a wide range of services and facilities for disabled people, will benefit large numbers of people. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for the Bill, and who are sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, will have heard and heeded the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Foreign Secretary, to ask whether we could have an early statement on the serious situation that is arising in former Yugoslavia, as a result of the statement by the Croatian President Tudjman that he wishes the United Nations forces to leave Croatian territory by the end of March? Will not that cause a serious crisis, which, potentially, could lead to a conflagration between the Serbs and the Croats over Krajina? Is not that a serious problem? Will the


Government make it clear at the earliest opportunity that we are doing all we can to stop such a withdrawal of UN forces?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noted that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here to answer questions on Wednesday next, and that may give him an opportunity to raise those points.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Given the point of order that I raised on Tuesday after Prime Minister's questions, the subsequent letter to the Prime Minister seeking clarification of his remarks, and his comment this afternoon that he wants the highest standards in public life, will a statement be made to correct the misrepresentations about my children that were made in the House by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions last Tuesday?

Mr. Newton: That is not a matter on which I can add anything, but, of course, I take note that the hon. Gentleman has raised it again.

Points of Order

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have informed the hon. Member concerned—the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes)—about this point of order. During business questions, the hon. Gentleman made direct and serious allegations that Labour Members had financial interests that did not appear in the Register of Members' Interests. Will you invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw those remarks? If he is not willing to withdraw them and to apologise to Labour Members, will you instruct him to report any evidence that he has to the Registrar of Members' Interests?

Madam Speaker: I tend to treat such remarks with the disdain that they richly deserve, but if the hon. Lady will leave the matter with me, I shall take up her point.

Mr. Elliot Morley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Agriculture questions, you will have heard the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food complain that I had not notified him when I raised a point of order with you last: Thursday. I have listened on a number of occasions when you have made it clear to the House that, when hon. Members are referred to in debate or in points of order, they should be notified in advance. On that particular occasion, the hon. Member whom I referred to was the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). I rang up that hon. Member and informed him that I would refer to him. I have written to the Editor of Hansard to point out that mistake, but I hope that you will accept my explanation to you.

Madam Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. When hon. Members make speeches or comments in the House, it is incumbent upon them to go to the Hansard office afterwards just to check what they have said. Indeed, the Editor of Hansard normally invites hon. Members to do that. That should be an established practice so that any errors can be corrected. It is no good making complaints in exchanges across the Floor of the House unless hon. Members have been to the Hansard office to ensure that corrections have been made.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you reflect on the way in which you decide to call hon. Members during Agriculture questions? When we have Scottish questions, you often use your discretion and do not call one hon. Member on one side of the Chamber, then another on the other side. Sometimes in Agriculture questions, not enough Labour Members stand, and you then tend to move on. Bearing in mind the fact that sometimes Conservative Members are standing at those times, will you perhaps consider the way in which you call hon. Members in Agriculture questions, so that you might follow the precedent that you have already set in Scottish questions?

Madam Speaker: Of course, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has asked me to do, but I have total discretion, as I know that he appreciates. I must also take into account whether a question has been explored sufficiently. That is also uppermost in my mind, to ensure that we do not go on with one question simply because


hon. Members are keen, frustration is showing on their faces, and they think that they should be called to put a supplementary question. I must keep it in mind whether a question has been explored and debated sufficiently across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were clearly twice placed in considerable difficulty during Prime Minister's questions. I think that that situation arose in part because of the difficulty that hon. Members have in asking specific questions of the Prime Minister due to his narrow responsibilities and the danger of his transferring questions. Nevertheless, I wonder whether you might invite the Procedure Committee, I presume, to consider ways in which hon. Members could successfully table questions of a closed nature to the Prime Minister and thus, we would hope, avoid some of the difficulties that arise from the numerous open questions. Would you reflect on that and perhaps ask the advice of the appropriate Committee, which could investigate ways to enable us to put more specific questions to him in the hope that we would receive more specific answers, which might also help the general order of the House?

Madam Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sympathy for the difficulties that I sometimes have, but it is my understanding that the Procedure Committee is already considering the matter. However, I shall pursue it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you are prepared to comment on the incident that occurred between you and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He referred to the view held by some people that Lord Archer was involved with criminal activities. In view of the fact that the Nolan committee

has been set up to examine, among other things, the idea held by some people out there that some Members of Parliament are involved in such activities and taking money for various causes when they should not be doing so, why, when my hon. Friend refers to someone in another place, is he pulled up? He is merely voicing the views expressed by people outside about some Members of this House and some in another place. I do not know why people are so sensitive—the Nolan committee has been set up to examine those very views.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The House entrusted me with its Standing Orders and the precedents that I have to follow. I refer him, and the House for that matter, to page 379 of "Erskine May", which states:
Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms .… reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of … Members of either House of Parliament".
I was entrusted to carry out the procedures, which is why I had to take the action that I took. I try to give hon. Members a bit of a cooling-off period and time to reflect, but the bottom line is that I have then to carry out the procedures entrusted to me by the House.

BILL PRESENTED

WELFARE OF CALVES (EXPORT)

Mr. Chris Mullin, supported by Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Nigel Jones, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. Austin Mitchell, presented a Bill to prohibit the export of calves where, after such export, they are to be kept in conditions which would be unlawful in Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 February, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

Opposition Day

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

[1ST PART]

Mortgage Interest Relief

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the proposed withdrawal of help with mortgage interest payments during the first nine months on income support for any applicant obtaining a mortgage after 1st October 1995 and the reduction in such assistance for existing borrowers who in future are forced to apply for state help; and, recognising that these changes will result in a very significant additional cost for home owners, lead to repossessions which are already running at an unacceptably high level and further depress the housing market, calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw these proposals, which will cause real difficulties for both lenders and borrowers.
As its title makes clear, the motion deals with the support given to people drawing income support and with help with mortgage interest payments. It might seem a rather technical and obscure matter to do with the fine print. Indeed, it is ultimately likely to result in regulations that will be passed in a quiet corner of the Committee Corridor at the fag end of a parliamentary day. That should not happen, and we are determined that it will not, because the proposals raise significant issues.
Mortgage interest support is no small issue in itself. Of course, it has increased greatly in recent years, and that was one of the foundations on which the Secretary of State for Social Security made his case for change.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman says that it has increased substantially. Would he care to inform the House that it has increased from £31 million to £1.1 billion?

Mr. Dewar: I regret having given way because I was about to deal with that very point. This time, the hon. Lady is correct. Mortgage interest support has risen from, as the hon. Lady says, £31 million in 1979 to just over £1 billion in current terms. It involves about 550,000 claimants. I will not give way to the hon. Lady again in case she stands up to say that it involves 548,000 people. I offer her that gratuitous fact, which she can dream about tonight.
The anger and the drive in the Department appears to be based on that rise in support. The increase has largely been in the latter part of the period and it is of course, as everyone in the House recognises, almost entirely the result of two factors. One reason is the recession—the Government are not in a very good position to complain about the management of the recession—and the second reason is the very large increase in owner-occupation.
The Secretary of State managed to sound as though he was complaining about the latter factor. In the Department of Social Security press release, which announced the change, he said:
In recent years the pattern of owner occupation has changed out of all recognition",

as though that were something to deplore. In fact, the Government, quite rightly, have been encouraging people to buy their own homes when it makes sense for them and they are in a position to do so. I certainly make no complaint about the fact that there are more owner-occupiers. I take from it the logic that that increase will put greater pressure on the scheme that we are discussing.
My worry is that the changes being brought forward are likely to introduce an element of instability which will be quite serious to many people in the country. I do not want to insult the House by running over the proposals in any detail, but in the briefest possible way, I remind hon. Members that if a person takes out a new mortgage after 1 October 1995 and—unfortunately—has to apply for help, he will find that he is in a help-free zone for nine months.
Existing borrowers who have to apply in future for help with mortgage interest will get no help for two months and 50 per cent. for four months, compared with the present limitation of, simply, 16 weeks at 50 per cent. There is the comparatively minor matter, with which I have no objection, that the cap on mortgages is being reduced for this purpose from £125,000 to £100,000.
The impact of the changes will be considerable. Existing borrowers will find that if they were to move on to income support and apply for help, they would be losing through this disqualification the equivalent of two months' support, or for someone on an average mortgage, about £350. For new mortgages, the nine-month freeze would be worth about £1,250. Those amounts are not academic but substantial sums that will be sadly missed, especially by people who are in a marginal situation and who are struggling to maintain their position as home owners.
Problems will be created. To be fair—I make no bones about it—the Government have offered a solution. That solution is that the private insurance market will be able to cover the gap and offer the service. The thrust of that and the most significant difficulty with it is that if the scheme is as comprehensive as, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to be, it will place a significant burden on almost every home owner in the country.
Insurance is a commercial business and, as the Government have conceded, it costs about £7 to cover every £100 of mortgage payments currently. Realistically, it looks like adding another £200 or £300 a year to the cost of maintaining one's house.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dewar: Those figures will be little consolation to the hon. Lady who is shaking her head so decisively.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No, I am sorry.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Dewar: May I—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is no good referring to me and not giving way.

Mr. Dewar: I am not giving way to the hon. Lady.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh come on.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady is turning a delightful colour of brick red, but even that will not tempt me to give way.
The changes will be—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman must give way.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dewar: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Madam Speaker: Then I and the hon. Gentleman must remain firm.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman should give way. He has referred to me.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give way a little later.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady complains that I am drawing attention to her, but she is doing a very good job at drawing attention to herself. I suspect that it is doing her no good at all.
Anyway, at £7 per £100, I do not think that there is—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not pursue the point. She knows our procedures very well. Perhaps if she leaves her point until a little later, the hon. Gentleman may give way then.

Mr. Dewar: I am very grateful to you, Madam Speaker.
Realistically, it looks like an extra £200 or £300 a year on the cost of home ownership. It will be little consolation to know that there is a small addition to that, which I mention only in passing, of the new 2.5 per cent. insurance tax which will apply to such premiums.
We must consider whether that burden will be shouldered cheerfully. The issue must be seen in context. Not only do home owners face the prospect of the additional insurance costs if they take the Secretary of State's advice, but, from April, their MIRAS—mortgage income relief at source—will be reduced to 15p. The Council of Mortgage Lenders, whose arithmetic is probably better than mine, reckons that someone with an average mortgage will see the cost of home ownership rise by just over 10 per cent.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): If the hon. Gentleman is criticising the reduction in mortgage interest relief at source introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he also criticise the Opposition housing spokesman, who proposes the abolition of mortgage interest relief, as I will happily demonstrate in my speech?

Mr. Dewar: In that case, it might have been useful if the Secretary of State had waited to make his point in his speech. If we are talking about MIRAS—as apparently we are—when the Secretary of State replies, will he explain what he thought of the manifesto promise that MIRAS would be maintained at present levels when it has

now been reduced twice by the Government, and is now at 15 per cent? That does not seem to be a ground on which the Secretary of State should choose to do battle.
No doubt the defence will be that individuals can make their own choice and some will opt out from the additional burden. We must ask whether the proposal can be comprehensive. I will deal with that point reasonably briefly. Many groups of people are unlikely to be covered by the private insurance market. For the evidence for that, I rely on the briefing that was sent to hon. Members by the Association of British Insurers which, naturally, wants to sell insurance. That is the point of its activities. It will be extremely difficult to offer cover to many important groups.
For example, pensioners are not in the frame. Some categories, notably the retired, who are claiming income support because of a permanent shortfall—

Mr. Lilley: Lest the hon. Gentleman inadvertently misleads the House, may I state that the proposals do not apply to pensioners?

Mr. Dewar: I was about to come to that point. I read the documents that the Government issue and I want to obtain more information. The people to whom I have referred cannot be covered by insurance. Therefore, they must be covered by some form of exemption. The phrase used is that they will be "protected". However, it is clear from the Government amendment that pensioners on income support
will continue to have their mortgage interest paid".
The Secretary of State has given this matter much thought—as was clear from the speed with which he approached the Dispatch Box—so perhaps he will explain on what basis that will be paid. Will it be paid at the standard rate? Will there be a restriction in the first 16 weeks, as previously, or will all the mortgage interest be paid? It would be extremely helpful if the Secretary of State could clarify those points.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Three and a half minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman assumed that insurance premiums would remain the same even though many more people would take them out. According to the normal principle of insurance, the wider the coverage, the more likely it is that premiums will fall.

Mr. Dewar: I agree with the hon. Lady and that no doubt is the hope. However, the hon. Lady will recall that things can go up as well as down. Between 1991 and 1993, premiums in the sector about which we are concerned increased by 43 per cent. and a large number of insurance companies made very substantial losses and withdrew from such business. If the proposal is to be the substantial foundation on which the Government are relying, it seems to be a very high risk strategy.
As I do not have time to deal with those groups in detail, I shall simply say that there will be great difficulties for the self-employed. I am told that most private insurance companies will cover the self-employed. However, they will pay only if they are satisfied that the self-employed have ceased to trade. The terms are usually that a business must be wound up or, in some cases, that the self-employed are in voluntary liquidation or are bankrupt. That does not seem to be a happy situation.
The disabled can be covered too, but not, of course, for any claim that arises out of their disability or an existing illness. Even for those who will be covered, there will be


bad news and good news. The good news, according to the Association of British Insurers, is that one's premium is likely to be calculated to reflect the increased risk. In other words, they will be paying above the average. The bad news is that that degree of sophistication is probably still a year or two away, so that in the interim there will probably be no cover for them at all.
There are also single parents, who comprise about 20 per cent. of the claimants' group. They, I am told, will be all right. The Association of British Insurers says to me that we do not need to worry; most of them will not qualify for a mortgage, so they will not need mortgage interest support. Even those who have mortgages and whose marriages break up will get the support that they require from their former partners—ha, ha—or from the work of the Child Support Agency, we are told. [Laughter.] Definitely, there is cause for some laughter at that point.
For new single parents, the results of an immediate and unexpected divorce, there is unlikely to be any cover at all. They do not fall within the remit of the industry. If they did obtain cover or if they had cover, they would almost certainly not receive payment for 12 months, according to the Association of British Insurers, because it would not pay out because of the danger of fraud until decree nisi had passed. By that time they would have had the equivalent, anyway, of the nine-month period without any help and would be in grave danger.
It will not be easy to obtain comprehensive cover of the kind that the Secretary of State has suggested. I certainly recognise, as he does—it is a point that I have made about single parents—that most private contracts allow for 60 or 90 days without any payment or support in any event, so we are left with private insurance cover not covering the gap that the Secretary of State is creating, although insurance cover was supposed to be the answer to that gap. That must be very unsatisfactory.
A large number of people will not take out cover and may find themselves unexpectedly at risk. Fewer than 5 per cent. of existing mortgage holders have such insurance cover. It has gone up substantially recently, but again, to quote the Association of British Insurers, even if the advantages of this kind of insurance are pointed out—we know what that means—by the lender, then the "penetration rate"—a somewhat sinister phrase—
can be as high as 35 per cent.
That does not sound like comprehensive cover by any reasonable definition.
Repossessions are dropping. That gives me great pleasure, and I hope that they continue to drop, but the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association and the people who are in the business of lending will say that they are convinced that one result of the changes, if they are brought into force, is that there will be more repossessions than there should have been and that even if, as I hope, there is a continuing drop, it will be very much smaller than it otherwise could have been. The Secretary of State should take that point into account.
I ask the Secretary of State to deal with the 1991 agreement between the Department of Social Security and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. In it, direct payment was agreed and, in return for direct payment, it was said there would be no repossessions. It is very important that that holds good and continues.
I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the CML news update, issue No. 4, which has just come out and with which I am sure he will be familiar. Its second and most important conclusion is:
it is difficult to see how the December 1991 agreement between lenders and the Government can now survive.
If that is true and if that fear turns out to be justified, that would be an extremely serious matter. One of the difficulties that worries the trade and me, although there have been some reassuring words, is how the new standard rate will affect people who have been prudent and have taken out a fixed-interest mortgage and who may find that there is a continuing gap on a permanent basis, when they are in receipt of support, between what has been paid on their behalf and their obligation and indebtedness to the lender.
I shall be very quick because I recognise the strictures of time in this short debate, but let me turn to the justifications, as I understand them, for the changes. One is that it is appropriate, proper and meet that those who own their own homes should stand on their own two feet. That is an attractive idea, and I understand that it may appeal to some members of the Conservative party, but I cannot understand the logic behind it.
If we assume—I believe that we are right to do so—that people on income support in rented property deserve to have their rent paid because of their financial difficulties and the situation in which they find themselves, why should people in exactly the same financial situation, who qualify for and receive income support, get no help whatever simply because they have bought their own homes?
There seems to be something of a turnabout in historic terms, because I am now defending home owners. I do not see why they should be discriminated against, and that is exactly what is happening. There will be help with rent for people on income support but no help with mortgage interest payments. Of course there should be no repayment of capital, because that would be preserving and enhancing a capital asset, but what is the logic behind the discrimination against home owners?

Mr. Julian Brazier: Surely there is a considerable difference in circumstances between the two cases. People who buy their own houses not only take on a considerable responsibility, and should understand that that is what they are doing, but in the vast majority of cases, despite the fact that there is some negative equity now, will enjoy a capital gain in the long term.

Mr. Dewar: In view of the history of recent years that sounds like an argument about fool's gold.
There was once a time when a home owner would live in the stockbroker belt in a Tudor villa, but now many of my home owners live in former council houses; many have had to struggle, and are marginal home owners in every sense. I have not time to embroider the argument, but I feel strongly that the proposal is discriminatory and cannot be justified.

Mr. Frank Field: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dewar: I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Field: Is not the proposal so surprising that one must ask oneself what the next move may be? As the


people on the Treasury Bench are supposed to be so fully committed to owner-occupation, this should be the last thing that they would suggest. They could justify it to their supporters only if they answered my hon. Friend's question by describing it as a first move towards further reform. The next move could be to expect people to cover their rent through some form of insurance in case they become unemployed.

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend has been here too long and has been watching the Government for too long, as we all have. I understand his point, but I hope that it is neither valid nor justified.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: I must press on.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I am giving way for literally the last time.

Mr. Jenkin: In view of the hon. Gentleman's unhappiness about the apparent inconsistency between the treatment of rents and that of mortgage interest, is he undertaking that it would be a Labour Government's policy to harmonise those arrangements? Does he undertake not only to reverse the present situation but to go further? How much would that cost?

Mr. Dewar: At the moment I am arguing that discriminatory treatment should not be introduced and that we should oppose it. I genuinely hope—I am not being sarcastic—that as the hon. Gentleman has some experience in the subject, he will join me.
As I understand it, the second reason for introducing the measure is the idea that the insurance market can offer more comprehensive cover. For example, if people have savings of more than £8,000 they do not get income support, and if someone loses his job and the family income is cut by two thirds but his wife still works, the family may not qualify for income support. The idea is that for the £200 or £300 a year spent on the premium people will have a security and stability that would not otherwise be available.
I have been trying to tell the Secretary of State that I do not believe that such comprehensive cover will be achieved. Many of the vulnerable people will not buy cover and will end up in the vale of tears; there may be a considerable on-cost to public funds in the end. It may be right to be prudent, but prudence is not compulsory; it is an addition and an alternative to the safety net of the mortgage interest protection organised by the DSS.
There is another argument of great importance, on which I make no apology for quoting the Council of Mortgage Lenders again. The council first says that there has been a drive to encourage home ownership for people on more modest incomes—I approve of that. It adds:
First, the Government remains committed to assisting people to enter owner-occupation—the Housing Corporation is being instructed to give an increasing proportion of its budget to low-cost home-ownership initiatives which supposedly enable marginal groups to enter owner-occupation.
The council then argues trenchantly and forcefully that the Government's proposals run counter to that aim, because they will have two effects. First, they will put at risk many people in that economic situation—the low-bottom tranche of home ownership, which many

people have been artificially stimulated into entering. Secondly, according to the council, the proposals may frighten out many people in the commercial world who might otherwise have invested in such enterprises.
The council argues that the proposals are therefore incompatible with the general thrust of Government policy—a thrust with which, unusually, I sympathise. I do not believe that home ownership should be the privilege of the well-off. The policy causes an unpleasant clash of principles within the Government's scheme of priorities, and I ask the Minister to think again.
I shall finish—or almost finish—by giving the final reason for the proposals: the Government hope to save money. I shall ask the Minister to say a word or two about that. The DSS press release mentions £200 million in the long term—an interesting figure. We know that the minor adjustment in the cap on mortgages—the limitation to £1,000—will save only £1 million between October, when it is introduced, and the following April. From that April to the following October the savings will again be only £1 million. That may surprise hon. Members, because that measure sounds quite important. As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said—I do not want to draw attention to her in case she rises in her wrath—we are spending £1 billion. Yet the saving is only £1 million.
Let us take a more important figure—the estimated saving from new mortgage holders after 1 October. Those are the people who will find that they lose nine months' support. What will that save? I received a parliamentary answer to that question, and I can hardly believe it. Assuming that one includes all the people involved, the annual saving will be £18 million. What is £18 million compared with the cost of the scheme?
The adjustment will mean bureaucracy, discrimination, differentials and many other problems. It will put some people at risk, because some will lose their homes and possibly their jobs; there will certainly be casualties. Yet the figure for savings resulting from the main change is something like £18 million for a whole year. That is dogma run mad, and it will cause an enormous number of difficulties. I hope that the Minister will say clearly what savings he expects will result from his proposal.
Now I really shall finish, by saying that the Secretary of State is in a double bind. If the system is as comprehensive as he says, if he gets everyone on board and persuades them all to find the extra £200 or £300 a year, he will create a considerable additional burden for home owners right across the range. Many may escape the burden and will not have to pay, but then the trouble will be that the system will not be comprehensive, thus losing the only virtue that the right hon. Gentleman parades.
Better-off people in steady employment, who may well pay the insurance, may ultimately begin to think that they are paying for something that they do not need, and that they have been done. The vulnerable, the people who really need the coverage, will no doubt recognise that they cannot afford to take it out, and they will join the casualties.
In the consultation, I hope that the Minister will consider what is being said by the Consumers Association, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Association of British Insurers, the Building Societies Association and the Council of Mortgage


Lenders, all of which have trenchant criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. Some of those organisations are openly, root-and-branch hostile to the idea.
Some Conservative Members have already raised a cry of pain. I am confident that Tory Back Benchers who go to their constituencies will not be met with a quiet word of congratulation in the corner and a mutter of welcome for the new proposals. They will find—rightly and understandably—that the proposals are very unpopular.
I do not mind about that—it is not my problem. I do mind about a number of people whom I know personally, and many more whom I know exist in my constituency, who are existing on a budget that is stretched to breaking point by a mortgage. Those people have no room for error or for manoeuvre, and they may well be put to the wall because of the increases in costs. They may decide to run the risk, and end up as really difficult casualties, and find that they have no support at all for a vital nine-month period. I do not think that those people should be put at hazard by the measure. I do not think that people such as them—who exist in every constituency—should be forgotten in the House, and that is I why commend the motion.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
condemns the Opposition's wish to continue the inadequate existing system of Income Support Mortgage Interest, which does not protect those with modest savings, those with small pensions or redundancy payments, or those with a working spouse, which has undermined the spread of private mortgage insurance and has contributed to 50,000 homes a year being repossessed; believes that the Government's proposals will lead to the development of more comprehensive, less costly insurance cover; welcomes the fact that pensioners on income support will continue to have their mortgage interest paid; and reaffirms its commitment to home ownership".
Much as I like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—he knows that—we will take no lectures from him or from any of his colleagues, who voted at every opportunity to stop council tenants having the right to buy their own homes. They cannot pose as the friends of home ownership.
We will take no lectures from a party that has always used every lever available to it in Parliament, local councils and housing authorities to prevent people from owning their own homes. The Labour party has only one objective locally and nationally: to become the nation's landlord. We are the party of home ownership, and we will remain so.
The Labour party is trying to pretend to be on the side of home owners, but its position wholly ignores the problems of those who suffer the risk of repossession. Labour offers nothing, and in his speech the hon. Member for Garscadden offered nothing to help them.
Labour seems to oppose the spread of private insurance, which would protect such people because, on doctrinaire grounds, it is against private insurance. We believe that the present income support arrangements for mortgage interest, which are extremely costly to the taxpayer, are manifestly unsatisfactory and need reform. They fail to provide comprehensive cover.
The Labour party mentions the present system of ISMI as though it provides cover for everyone who finds themselves unemployed or without earnings: it does not. Two thirds of home owners would not qualify for help if they lost their jobs today, either because they have a working spouse or because they have a little saved. Many of the remaining one third would be disqualified simply because they were receiving redundancy pay or an early retirement package. Labour offers nothing to protect them from the risk of repossession.
As a result, some 150,000 people a year who lose their jobs receive no help from income support with their mortgage interest. Labour offers nothing to help them to avoid the risk of repossession. Some 50,000 people have their homes repossessed every year, many of whom are not in receipt of income support. Labour offers nothing to help them.
We are determined to improve the situation, and that means encouraging the growth of private insurance. Private insurance has been growing, but the very existence of income support for mortgage interest has undermined its growth over a period when it could have provided valuable cover.
People who believed that they were covered did not take out insurance, only to find that they could not receive help from the state. Our measures will help to reduce repossessions in a number of ways.

Ms Ann Coffey: Will the Secretary of State comment on a problem that one of my constituents experienced? He took out mortgage protection insurance cover but, because he attended a Government training course the Employment Agency did not deem him to be unemployed, for reasons of which I am sure the Secretary of State is well aware. As the agency would not confirm that he was not in employment, his insurance company refused to pay out.
Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be thousands of such cases? People will have to read the fine print of their insurance policies carefully. Is he further aware that there will be endless wrangles between constituents, Members of Parliament, insurance companies and the Employment Agency over exactly what unemployment means?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady makes an important point. One of the consequences of our reforms will be that lenders and borrowers will have an interest in ensuring that insurance policies are good, high-quality policies that cover what they purport to cover and offer protection against the circumstances in which people may find themselves. Those include the circumstances described by the hon. Lady. I shall return to that issue; it is an important aspect of what we are seeking to achieve.

Mr. Jenkin: Should not home owners be advised to read carefully the small print of the next Labour manifesto? Is not it unclear what policies are being promised to make home owners more secure under a Labour Government?

Mr. Lilley: That is certainly true. Home owners should look not only for the small print but for the price tag; very often they will find neither.
Our measures will help reduce repossessions in a number of ways. First—I do not recall the hon. Member for Garscadden mentioning this—for existing borrowers,


we shall start paying ISMI direct to the lender from the outset. At present, during the initial 16-week period, when it is payable at a rate of 50 per cent., it is paid to the borrower, but it is often not passed on to the lender. Arrears can then accumulate, and that can cause problems. That will not happen in future.
Secondly, we will ensure that all those taking out new mortgages are encouraged to take out insurance or other forms of cover for the first nine months of any loss of earnings. It will be in the interests of the lender and the borrower to see that proper cover is in place. ISMI will be available after nine months—much as at present—to cover those who face loss of earnings.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Secretary of State explain how the measure will help many borrowers who will lose income support for the first nine months? Those borrowers will be urged to take out private insurance, but most private insurance companies will not pay anything for the first 90 days, or at least the first 60 days. Where will the borrower obtain the money that the Government have removed?

Mr. Lilley: Responsibility for providing protection in the event of loss of earnings must be covered by the borrower, the lender and the Government. We all have a responsibility, but it is perfectly reasonable that during the first couple of months the lender and the borrower should meet the cost of any inability to pay interest.
We should remember that the vast majority of people who lose their jobs get back into work shortly—two thirds do so within six months and a large number within the first couple of months. That makes it unnecessary to make arrangements for paying interest to lenders, who are large institutions with extremely large resources. Lenders can deal with that in the first instance, as of course they do for the majority of people who are not covered by income support for mortgage interest.

Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State assures the House that all will be well when the measure is passed, but the Opposition naturally question whether that optimism is securely based. We are worried on a number of counts. Following his experience with the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State has been converted to pilot studies. Has he thought about introducing them for this measure, so that before we make the scheme universal we can find out which side of the House is right—the Conservative side, which is confident that all will be well, or our side, which is worried that many people will suffer as a result?

Mr. Lilley: I do not think that this measure will suffer from the organisational problems that beset large-scale organisational reform. In a sense, we already have experience of private insurance and we want to build on it and to make it better. We know from our experience of the state system that it is inadequate and that it leaves many people uncovered—an issue that the Opposition have failed to mention. We are making the change only for the first nine months and for those taking out new mortgages, so it will be introduced gradually, as new people enter the market.
Pensioners on income support will continue to receive payments for their interest—

Mr. Dewar: At the standard rate?

Mr. Lilley: Yes, at the standard rate. At present, they are not subject to the 50 per cent. rule for the first 16 weeks and will not be subject to it.
We have begun consultations with those involved, will consult carefully about how the change may affect other groups and are determined to get the details right. I will deal with extensive coverage in a moment, but first I must deal with some of the criticisms that have been made here and in other Labour party statements in recent weeks.
The alleged increase in the cost of buying houses, as a result of the combined effect of the recent small interest rate rise, changes in mortgage interest relief and the introduction of private insurance, is one of the main complaints, which were widely faxed to the newspapers by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), to which the hon. Member for Garscadden alluded. They claim that that increase will price first-time buyers out of the market, which is sheer nonsense.
The two main determinants of the cost of buying a house are the price of houses, which by historical standards is low relative to earnings, and the interest rate, which is almost at a 20-year low point because of our success in getting inflation down, which will be put at risk by Labour's policies. Their combined effect means that, even after allowing for the tax change and the potential cost of mortgage insurance, the cost of house purchase is little more than half the proportion of net income that it was at its peak about five years ago. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out at Question Time, the typical mortgage today costs £140 a month less than in October 1990.
Claims that the cost of mortgage protection is high and is likely to rise are nonsense. One can already insure one's mortgage for 4p in the pound on one's monthly advance, if one insures direct, which is only £12 per month on the average mortgage. How many hon. Members spend as little as that to insure the contents of their house, and how many think it strange that they, rather than the taxpayer, have to pay the buildings insurance on their home, which is usually a condition of a mortgage?

Mr. Dewar: The cost of alternative protection is obviously important. Perhaps I have placed too much reliance on the Building Societies Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that someone on an average mortgage could arrange adequate cover for under £150 a year?

Mr. Lilley: Yes, if they took advantage, for example, of the new General Accident Direct insurance, rather than going through a building society and paying it the additional commission. Commissions may well decrease as a result of our changes and I very much hope so.

Mr. John Denham: rose

Mr. Lilley: May I make a little progress before I give way again? The hon. Gentleman may find that my comments will relieve him of the need to intervene.
We consider it normal to insure, and to be required to insure, the fabric of the building against fire and damage when we take out a mortgage. We do not think it unusual


to take out life insurance policies to pay off the mortgage if the breadwinner dies. Moreover, competition is reducing the cost of home building insurance. The Halifax has announced cuts of up to 60 per cent. in its insurance premiums, with average cuts of about 20 per cent. The Association of British Insurers is convinced that the cost of mortgage insurance will come down as it becomes more universal.
At present, the worst risks—people who suspect that they may be made redundant—are those who are most likely to take out insurance, which means that costs are higher than they would be otherwise. The spread of insurance over a wider spectrum of people will give a better spread of risks, and so reduce costs and premium.
Some hon. Members have claimed that the changes will adversely affect the housing market. I certainly recognise the importance of rebuilding confidence in the market, but I do not believe that our announced changes will undermine it. On the contrary, it is clear that it is not the cost of purchasing houses that is holding back the housing market, as it is historically quite low relative to incomes and will not be appreciably affected by the modest cost of mortgage insurance.
The main problem is personal confidence and fear of unemployment at a turbulent time in the labour market, not merely here but worldwide, which is causing new buyers to hold back. When insurance cover is the norm, as part of a new mortgage, potential new buyers are likely to feel more confident, not less. Moreover, fewer people who become unemployed will be unable to cope and thus face repossession, so the market will be less depressed by forced sales.
Almost by definition, a market in which new buyers are properly covered against risk will be healthier, more active and more resilient.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In my constituency nine people are chasing every job. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that premiums will be higher in such an area, and what is his estimate of what they might be?

Mr. Lilley: Usually, insurers do not have regional premiums—

Mrs. Fyfe: What about car insurance?

Mr. Lilley: Of course they do for motor insurance.
The main threat to the housing market is people such as the hon. Member for Garscadden and others talking it down, scaremongering and spreading wholly unfounded fears, and they should be ashamed of themselves. The Council of Mortgage Lenders told me emphatically that people should not talk down the market, as the Opposition have.
Some Labour Members have asserted that cover will not be available for certain groups. The insurance industry has roundly rebutted that assertion. In its paper, the Association of British Insurers states:
Very few people, having first been accepted by a mortgage lender as a satisfactory credit risk for granting a mortgage will not be eligible for insurance. Even in these few cases, the competitive nature of the mortgage protection insurance market is such that new products are likely to be developed quite quickly, or existing products refined to provide cover".

Likewise, the Abbey National said:
If we have agreed a mortgage there is no reason why the borrower should not then qualify for mortgage repayment protection.
Of course, we shall take care when framing the regulations to ensure that we encourage comprehensive cover for all those who should be able to get a mortgage. I am pleased that the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers have agreed to work closely with my officials to ensure that we do all that we can to achieve that objective.

Mr. Denham: The Minister referred to the Council of Mortgage Lenders and said that it did not want people to talk down the housing market. Is that the same Council of Mortgage Lenders that has written to hon. Members, saying that it is
concerned about the potential impact on mortgage borrowers and on the housing market of the changes which have been announced"?

Mr. Lilley: Yes, it is, and a certain ability to argue its case when it has a vested interest in receiving more than £1 billion of public money with no questions asked is not surprising. Whoever suggested that the hon. Gentleman should be cautious about repeating everything that the Council of Mortgage Lenders says was right. It would be a first, in my experience, if an interest group in receipt of public money did not argue to continue receiving at least as much of it in future.

Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful for the fact that my right hon. Friend continues to set an excellent example by giving way to hon. Members on both sides. On the moral point about vested interests, does he agree that it is wrong that people who take out mortgages on large properties should be underwritten by the state—and the taxpayer—in some unlimited fashion? After all, the taxes are paid by people who are often on much lower incomes.

Mr. Lilley: That is certainly correct. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will have been shocked by a number of recent, highly publicised cases of significant sums being lent to certain people. For instance, a part-time speech therapist was able to secure a loan of hundreds of thousands of pounds on the prospect that she would cease to be part time and be able to work full time—only to discover that she could not do so. The lender who made that decision felt it right and proper that the taxpayer should underwrite the risk. That is surely not an optimum use of taxpayers' money.
Insurers and lenders make it clear that policies are available for many of the groups for whom it is alleged they are not. As the hon. Member for Garscadden admitted, they are available for self-employed people. Policies have long been available to cover sickness and disability. Contract workers and people working in non-traditional ways are a growing phenomenon, and lenders are recognising that they will have to adapt to it if they want to be able to supply home finance for such people; otherwise they will lose out in an important market. They are therefore developing schemes involving repayment holidays between contracts built into the mortgage provision for people who are contract workers. We welcome that. In our discussions we shall attempt to find out what can be done to facilitate the growth of such policies.
The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned the consequences of marital breakdown. Of course, insurance policies do not cover that, but we should at least question whether those who split up can use that as an excuse immediately to pass on the cost of their mortgage to the taxpayer. Why should married taxpayers have to subsidise divorce? Is that Labour's policy? If a husband scarpers and leaves a wife to bring up the children with no income, in the first instance it is for the building society to pursue the errant husband, to make sure that he meets that liability. Moreover, in such circumstances, the building society has a duty to be helpful to the mother with children; should the situation persist beyond nine months, income support for mortgage interest will be available to help.
I accept that, as the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) said earlier, policies have not always been satisfactory. That is partly because income support for mortgage interest reduced pressure from lenders and, to some extent, reduced the number of borrowers pressing for improvements in policies.
We recently agreed to a revised code of practice from the Association of British Insurers. About 95 per cent. of mortgage protection insurance is handled by members of the ABI, and by the insurance ombudsman service or the personal insurance arbitration service. A condition of membership of the ABI is adherence to the code of practice, which was revised in the light of recommendations of the independent code-monitoring committee, which includes the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
The code is now tougher, and it will ensure that the advice given by those who sell insurance policies, or when lenders provide such policies alongside a mortgage, spells out the fine print and details the obligations to borrowers. I hope that that and any further changes that emerge in the course of our consultations will enhance the quality of mortgage protection policies as well as extending their coverage.

Mr. Dewar: I hope that I shall not have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but before he finishes will he deal with the potential savings? A question in Hansard on 15 December 1994 asked the Secretary of State to
estimate the annual savings in a full year to social security expenditure from withdrawing income support assistance with mortgage interest payments from new mortgages after October 1995 for nine months assuming that (a) all income support claimants with new mortgages are affected".—[Official Report, 15 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 794.]
The savings amounted to £18 million. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if that is right it would seem an extraordinarily small figure.

Mr. Lilley: That is simply because we are applying it to new mortgages. As the new mortgage builds up, savings will grow. We expect, within a relatively short time, the savings from the measures that I have mentioned today to amount to £200 million a year—

Mr. Keith Bradley: By when?

Mr. Lilley: By the end of, I think, the third year of the expenditure round. Overall, however, savings.will grow by more than that, as total coverage of mortgages comes in—

Mr. Dewar: Allowing for those who fall out of the figures?

Mr. Lilley: Correct, but most people are back in work within nine months. New mortgages are covered: existing mortgages are not, but over a 25-year period every mortgage will be covered. It will take time to build up—

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman many times. If he has difficulty with the idea, there is not much that I can do.

Mr. Dewar: Give way for the last time.

Mr. Lilley: No, I am sorry. I want to get on to the interesting aspect of the debate, which was the failure of the Labour party to mention its policies to help those at risk of repossession. I know that my hon. Friends, whatever their views, are all determined to help such people. There seemed to be no determination by the Labour party to improve cover for those who are at risk.
Opposition Members have offered nothing. To extend income support for mortgage interest to everyone, including the two thirds of home owners who are not eligible at present, would cost an enormous amount. The costs have already risen from £31 million in 1979 to £1.1 billion now. The Labour party has not recommended—rightly so—extending such cover at the taxpayers' expense; but it is not the cost that puts off Opposition Members. It is the fact that they have another policy that does not bear on the issue but which would in itself be hugely expensive.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), Labour's housing spokesman, advocates a mortgage benefit for those in work. By definition, it could not help the jobless. According to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, this idea would cost the taxpayer £600 million a year. The hon. Gentleman was at least unusually forthcoming about how he would pay for it. In an interesting interview in the magazine Roof, produced by Shelter, he said:
I do think a mortgage benefit scheme has substantial advantages. If part of its costs were met by further phasing out of MIRAS, so be it. I will talk to my Treasury colleagues about this.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: I cannot resist the opportunity.

Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the earlier part of that interview, in which I talked about how the Government were already phasing out MIRAS, with no benefit to home owners. In that part of the interview I deal with ideas for providing more effective help for home owners who are not helped by MIRAS.
Throughout his speech the right hon. Gentleman has criticised the present arrangements because of the lack of such help, but he has the gall to criticise the Labour party for having no positive proposals.

Mr. Lilley: So Labour's housing spokesman admits that these are the Labour party's proposals. They cost £600 million, and they would be paid for by a further phasing out of mortgage interest relief. It is a major step forward to have got that out of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jenkin: How many extra people would that put on means-tested benefits?

Mr. Lilley: I will have to look that up. I have no doubt that it would be a large number. It would be a means-tested benefit. It flies in the face of the criticisms that the rest of the shadow social security team has of means-tested benefits; that is an interesting but not unusual contradiction. I will look up the numbers and reply to my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Garscadden is not alone—he is not a maverick on this. The Commission for Social Justice made a similar proposal to extend income support to people in work on low incomes. Its proposals were helpfully costed by The Independent, with help from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a member of which sat on the commission. They show that the mortgage benefit to low-earning home buyers will cost between £600 million and £700 million. It is part of total identifiable proposals in the commission's report that add up to £7 billion a year.
It is financed by what are euphemistically called "savings". The specific one that seems to be related to mortgage benefit is the abolition of mortgage tax reliefagain—raising between £2.5 billion and £3 billion a year. In addition, the abolition of the married couple's allowance and tax on child benefit would in total raise more than £6 billion in extra income tax, paid by the income tax payer to finance the identifiable policies of the commission.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to inform the House about his policies, but he did not do so. He cannot object if I fill in for him. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) can tell us more later.

Mr. Dewar: I always knew that the Secretary of State was a "proper gent", as they say.
As the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the importance of MIRAS, and he will remember the 1992 Tory election manifesto, which I know he takes seriously, because it has stopped him doing all sorts of things, for example, to child benefit, I ask him whether he still stands by the promise in it—that Conservatives will maintain mortgage tax relief? Does that mean that he can guarantee that there will be no further adjustment downwards, and that it will be restored to its 1992 rate, at the first possible opportunity?

Mr. Lilley: It is clearly compatible with what the Government have done and is incompatible with what the hon. Gentleman proposes. It is a bit rich of the Labour party to criticise a reduction in the value of something that it proposed to abolish.
The position taken by the Labour party on the issue is irresponsible in the literal sense of the word. Labour is irresponsible in its criticisms, its scaremongering and talking down of the housing market. It is irresponsible in ignoring the real problem, which we seek to address: to provide greater and more comprehensive cover for those who are unprotected by income support for mortgage interest. It is irresponsible in that it will not even tell us whether it will reverse our plans should it ever get elected. It recklessly proposes extra costs and refuses to tell the

House in detail about them. It is irresponsible in that it does not recognise that individuals should play a part and accept some personal responsibility for housing finance, who in general do not object to doing so.
The cost of mortgage protection must be borne by someone. There is no logic that says that that someone should always be the taxpayer. Our proposals will mean that everyone—it is fewer than one third at present—who takes out a new mortgage should be properly covered against unemployment. They will mean fewer defaults and repossessions and a healthier market. Far from taking protection away, we are making it more likely that future borrowers are adequately protected. I recommend these measures to the House.

Mr. John Denham: The Government amendment moved in the name of the Prime Minister says that the House
believes that the Government's proposals will lead to the development of more comprehensive, less costly insurance cover".
That doctrinaire statement and the speech by the Secretary of State might be excusable from someone who had just landed in this country from another planet or who had just come out of business school full of free-market theories, but it could not be said by somebody with experience of the workings of the Financial Services Act 1986, or with responsibility for the workings of the Act, who had to oversee the disaster in the sales of personal pensions from which so many people are suffering, into which so much money will have to be poured and which has not yet begun to run its course.
The faith that the Government have placed in the way in which the insurance market will respond to their proposals is completely misplaced in a number of specific areas: first, the likely cost to be borne by home owners who must insure their mortgages; secondly, the consequences of the Government's determination not to regulate the market in the insurance policies that will be sold to cover the loss of income support for mortgage payments; and, thirdly, the area, scope and availability of cover for people wishing to buy their own homes.
On cost, it is interesting that, in 1993, home owners paid premiums totalling £220 million on mortgage protection policies, yet only £150 million was paid out on those policies. That suggests that some 30 per cent. of the premiums is absorbed in the cost of selling, marketing and administering the policies, and the profits of the insurance companies. One year's snapshot figures do not necessarily tell the whole tale, but I suggest that that sort of excess shows that it is an inefficient way in which to insure against anything.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one year's snapshot figures do not necessarily tell the whole tale. They cannot possibly, because the insurance industry is necessarily cyclical and there will be years when it pays out more than it collects in premiums, and those are offset by the years when the industry collects more in premiums than it pays out. A single year's figures are completely misleading.

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman will agree that, throughout the insurance industry, the cost of administration and marketing of private insurance policies is vastly greater than the cost of administering those that are run through the state social security system, and the


cost of selling the policies means that home owners will be paying not only the cost of their own insurance but the great costs of administering and running the system. I believe that that makes it an inefficient deal for home owners at the best of times.
The second point on cost has been raised, but as far as I am aware it has not been answered: people will now be left with a period of three months in which no cover will be available to them from the state or from the typical mortgage protection policy. I have not yet heard an explicit statement from the Government as to whether that three months is to be paid by the individual, from separate savings which they must make, or whether the Government blithely assume that mortgage lenders will absorb that three-month shortfall without moaning about it. I suspect that it might be the latter, in which case it is not surprising that building societies are talking about ending their agreements on repossessions.
It is estimated—I believe that it is widely accepted—that the increased cost of these policies over the lifetime of a typical mortgage will be between £7,000 and £8,000 per home buyer. That all points to the design of an inadequate system of cover, which would be more expensive to home owners, who are now the majority in our society, than other ways of insuring cover collectively through the social security system.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, among others, has called for a reform of the Financial Services Act, because it believes that the regulation of the sale of mortgage protection policies has proved inadequate. The Secretary of State asked us to rely yet again on codes of conduct and self-regulation that have so demonstrably failed in the sale of personal pensions and other products. Proper regulation of the sale of mortgage protection policies is essential under any circumstances, but to move into an enforced extension of the market to all home owners over time without regulating it properly is grossly irresponsible.
Such products suffer from arbitrary exclusion clauses. During the last recession, many of those who had mortgage protection policies found that the policies were withdrawn once the insurance company realised that somebody might face redundancy. In coal mining areas and other areas where redundancies were widely mooted, insurance companies tore up the policies just at the moment when people were likely to want to claim on them. The codes of practice that we have been offered so far will not ensure that those policies remain in force when they are needed.
Inappropriate policies may be sold. After all, on paper, people would require a policy that replaced the interest payments that the Government are taking away. Yet it is likely that, just to show that I do not take everything that the building societies say at face value, faced with a captive client, the building societies will be tempted to say that insurance is necessary and to sell a policy vastly more expensive than the client needs in order to cover the interest payments that the Government are taking away.
The Secretary of State asserted that there would be a fall in the costs of commissions and fees charged by the sellers of insurance policies. But it is interesting that, in parliamentary answers, Ministers have said that they have no intention of regulating to require the disclosure of commissions and fees at the point of sale of the policies.
For the past three weeks, anyone selling a personal pension policy has had to disclose fees and commissions. Yet when it comes to the sale of mortgage protection insurance, no such disclosure will be required, nor will there be any requirement to show that alternative and perhaps cheaper sources of insurance might be available.
It is easy to see how the new home buyer, possibly a first-time buyer who is quite unsophisticated in the financial services market, will be at the mercy of the building society agent who is not only providing the mortgage but under instructions to sell the insurance policy as well.
There will be no regulation to cover the widespread problem that most of these policies are invalidated by a short period of return to work. A person who is covered may claim on his policy. After nine months he may receive the job seeker's allowance. Within 14 weeks he may be forced back to work through threat of loss of benefit, but into a short-term or temporary job—the sort of job that the Secretary of State has made it clear people will be forced to take or they will lose their benefit.
Immediately, under most of the policies, people will make themselves uninsurable for future purposes. When the temporary or short-term job that they have been required to take comes to an end after a few weeks or months, they will be without cover. There has been no explanation from the Government about how they will cope with such a situation. It is impossible to cope with that without effective direct regulation of the industry.
The third area to which I wish to refer concerns the scope of the policies that are on sale. That seems to be the point at which the whole exercise becomes an article of faith rather than a rational analysis of what the market is likely to be. Currently, 19 per cent. of home owners are on short-term contracts, are self-employed or are part-time workers. But 36 per cent. of the work force are in those relatively insecure categories and most people believe that the number of people in self-employment, in part-time work and on contract work is likely to grow.
The reality is that some of those people, probably a substantial number, will no longer be able to enter into home ownership because of the difficulties or the risks of obtaining mortgage protection cover.
As a statement of faith, it is right to say that insurance cover will be available. Insurance cover is always available for anything at a price. But the one thing that the Government have ruled out is any regulation to ensure that insurance cover is available at a reasonable price for everybody. In replies to me, Ministers have ruled out the regulation of premiums.
We know, because it is there in all other forms of insurance, that the insurance industry is disaggregating its client group more and more every year. It simply is not realistic to believe that insurance companies will be happy to spread the risk of insuring against unemployment equally across those in secure employment and those who are in the most marginal part-time and short-term work.
Compared with today's costs, some cheaper policies will be available for those in the most secure employment. It is intrinsically unlikely that anything else would happen. But that would be balanced by a sharp and prohibitive rise for those who are clearly in insecure employment. That would be sufficient to bar altogether a substantial and growing number of people from entering


the housing market. That is an extraordinary policy aim for a Government who have always said that they back home ownership.
On grounds of cost and the efficiency with which insurance is provided in our society, this is a mistaken move. The Government's refusal on dogmatic grounds to regulate the very industry that they seek to promote is inexcusable and irresponsible. The damage to the aspiration of becoming a home owner of people who would rather have full-time permanent employment but cannot find it will be devastating.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). He has raised a number of important issues, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow his line of debate.
Members on both sides of the House, either in their speeches or interventions, are seeking to concentrate on the inequities for certain specific groups inherent in the proposals that we are debating today. But as chainnan of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, I am personally deeply concerned about the impact of the proposals on the housing market.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for spending a considerable amount of time with me earlier this week when we had a full and frank discussion on the matter. We covered many if not all of the issues that have been covered so far in the debate.
My right hon. Friend is aware that I have met representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association and the Association of British Insurers and the chief executive of the building society whose head office is located in my constituency, the Cheshire building society, an extremely efficient, progressive and fast-growing building society.
I remind my right hon. Friend that the Conservative Government were returned to power at the last general election in 1992 on a manifesto which pledged:
The opportunity to own a home and pass it on is one of the most important rights an individual has in a free society. Conservatives have extended that right. It lies at the heart of our philosophy.
That commitment, the promotion of home ownership, advocated by the Conservative party ever since it took office in 1979 and even before that, has transformed, particularly since 1979, the political complexion and the very structures of our society, and has proved to be, as I said to my right hon. Friend earlier this week, a winning formula.
People from lower income groups who had in the past felt alienated, marginalised or ignored by the main political parties could, albeit often after struggling to make ends meet, finally buy a stake in the property-owning democracy, a stake which often brought them into the Conservative fold for the very first time in the history of our party and gave my party the electoral boost that it needed. Ownership of property brought people enhanced self-respect and a stake in society, creating both a sense of responsibility and greater social stability—something in which I fervently believe; I hope that my party believes in it too.
Today, sadly, as we examine the Government's record in recent years, that commitment to a property-owning democracy and to home ownership that pledge—seems a little ragged. Mortgage interest relief at sourceMIRAS—is being phased out in what I consider to be a Treasury-driven exercise: it was reduced from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. last April, and will fall to 15 per cent. in April this year. There has been no increase in the £30,000 ceiling since 1985, nearly a decade ago.
Notwithstanding the comprehensive speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government's latest proposal to reduce mortgage interest support for home owners who lose their jobs carries a number of serious risks for those people, and also represents yet another nail in the coffin of the housing market and the property-owning democracy for which I stand.

Mr. Barry Porter: Come on!

Mr. Winterton: Let me tell my hon. Friend that the housing market is showing signs of weakness which reflect a lack of confidence, job insecurity and the prospect of further MIRAS reductions in April. That was confirmed only last night at a dinner that I had the pleasure of attending, when the Governor of the Bank of England told me openly and honestly, "The housing market is flat; the housing market is weak; there is indeed a problem."
The timing of my right hon. Friend's proposals is particularly unfortunate, and is likely to cause still more house purchases to be deferred. Indeed, figures relating to sales negotiated and new inquiries for the first weeks of this year already reveal that we are set for one of the worst years for house sales for some time. That is very bad news for the economy, because the housing market can influence a wide range of economic activity. Moreover, the implementation of such confidence-dampening measures causes a hiatus after their introduction. I need only cite the ending of double interest relief in August 1988 and the ending of the stamp duty moratorium on 19 August 1992.
In short, the housing market—which has not yet participated in the more general economic upturn—seems set to head further downhill into the doldrums. That is not due to high prices, lack of desire to own a home or a shortage of quality homes in all income ranges; it is due almost entirely to what I would describe as a series of Treasury-inspired blows which have left house builders punch drunk from the impact of what genuinely appears to be an attack on home ownership.

Mr. Porter: Author!

Mr. Winterton: Let me tell my hon. Friend—who is intervening very effectively from a sedentary position, as he generally does—that these are not just my own views.

Mr. Jenkin: Who wrote it, Nick?

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend should note that the House would do well to consider the recent third report of the Treasury Select Committee on the 1994 unified Budget, which stated:
We suspect that a long list of factors such as rising interest rates, poor job security and the announced changes to income support for mortgage payments, would incline individuals to stay out of the housing market, and explain a static market. None of our official witnesses gave us cause to change our mind.


Let me inform my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that the Treasury Select Committee—chaired as it is by my long-standing and respected hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), a former vice-chairman of the Conservative party—is not a maverick voice, but a credible commentator that has wisely sounded a serious warning to the Government at this time of consultation.
The fear of a reversal in the Government's attitude to home ownership is not only in the minds of observers. It was the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration himself who sounded the warning in a recent interview with the magazine Roof, which has already been mentioned. He said:
I don't think there is some undiscovered new wave of owner-occupation which is about to burst upon us, quite frankly. Most people still do have that as a natural aspiration"—
this is the section that I consider important�ž
but I don't personally attribute any moral superiority to owning a house".
Wise words, perhaps, in some people's view; but they relay a grim message about the Minister's own approach to home ownership.

Mr. Jenkin: Does the Treasury Select Committee report, which my hon. Friend quoted, actually say that a steady and stable housing market is a bad thing?

Mr. Winterton: No, indeed it does not—although I do not have a copy of the entire report with me; I shall certainly look at it after the debate to see whether that is specifically spelled out. Of course we want a stable housing market and low interest rates, because they are desirable for a sound economy.
Let me refer my hon. Friend to statistics produced by the House-Builders Federation, which show that the number of weekly site visitors so far this year is dramatically down on the figures for last year and the year before—and both those years were bad. Moreover, weekly net reservations also show a dramatic reduction on the past two years. I am glad to say that the federation produces its figures very quickly. Those, I think, are serious warnings.
Let me also tell my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who is sitting behind the Minister�žI assume that he is the Minister's parliamentary private secretary—that January and February are usually good months for the housing industry. The figures are therefore quite serious, and I hope that they will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders now predicts that, as a consequence of the change in income support for mortgage interest,
mortgage arrears will rise and repossessions are likely to increase in 1996".
Let me point out to my right hon. Friend that that may bring us dangerously close to a general election. Furthermore, the council predicts that, given the current economic climate and political approach, there is never likely to be an upturn in the housing market. The social implications of such a position are grave.
The new proposals will again place a smothering pillow over the slumbering face of confidence in the new housing market. They will discriminate against households and individuals wishing or needing to move house. As The Times put it on 1 December—it is important to note the views of these commentators�ž

crucially for the Government's fortunes, it will further heighten middle-class insecurity. Home ownership, house prices, economic security and middle-class support for the Tories are inextricably linked".
I share that view. I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only to reaffirm his commitment, and that of the Government, positively to promote home ownership, but to tell us clearly how that is to be done.
I do not intend to go into the details of the proposals, because that has already been done by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and will no doubt be done again by other speakers. The essence of the social injustice, however, lies in the fact that—as the Prime Minister proudly boasted in a written answer to me just a few days ago�ž
Owner-occupation in the United Kingdom has risen from just over 54 per cent. in 1979 to over 66 per cent."—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 25.]
That is important.
In keeping with their political vision of society the Government have enticed and encouraged into the property market many council and housing association tenants and many people who are on low incomes. Now they appear to be withdrawing from those groups the safety net of support, however inadequate it is. The policy has gone seriously awry for the most vulnerable, although I appreciate and support the steps that are to be taken to limit interest relief, where it is available, to a maximum value of £100,000.
There is now a clear and deliberate policy emerging from those who advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to stifle the housing market. Such Treasury mandarins—and I include the Governor of the Bank of England—continue to display an irrational fear of the childhood bogeyman of inflation which was rooted in social and economic conditions that no longer apply because our economic recovery is export driven. They see the housing market as a smouldering fire of intolerable price rises.
I do not want to see a return to the ludicrous, spiralling house prices of the late 1980s, but more movement and more confidence are prerequisites for growth in the economy as a whole and of the electoral prospects of my party. If we are committed to stimulating such growth, let the next Budget give a real, but responsible boost to the market by increasing MIRAS again from 15 to 25 per cent. for first-time buyers. It should be up to a maximum of £50,000 for a period of, say, five to 10 years. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will convey that message to the Chancellor. He should abolish the tax on prudence and responsibility which he imposed in his Budget when he introduced what I would describe as new and completely unjustified taxes on insurance premiums.
The proposals are well intentioned, but at this time they amount in practice to a betrayal of those on low incomes, the self-employed, people on short-term contracts and others who are struggling to have their stake in the property-owning democracy. I believe, and I hope that I am right, that it was Sir Winston Churchill who spoke about the need for a safety net for those who fall off the ladder of life. I respected him and I believe that when he said that he meant it. Society has a responsibility for those who through no fault of their own fall off the ladder of life. In this period of consultation I say to my hon. Friendf


that the proposals are poor economics, they are weak housing policy and they are bad politics. I shall not be able to support them in the Lobby.

Ms Liz Lynne: I am pleased to take part in the debate, although I realise that my speech and those of other hon. Members will probably have no effect whatever on the Government. Their policy is ill considered and will depress the property market, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said. In the long term it will cost jobs. At the same time as the Government are introducing the measure they are penalising the rented sector by cutting housing benefit. The policy will be an absolute disaster and the Government must do a U-turn before it is too late.
In his letter to all hon. Members, the Secretary of State for Social Security stated that mortgage interest benefit had risen from £31 million in 1979 to £1.1 billion today and that reform was clearly essential. It is indeed essential, but he should have gone on to say that the reason for the need for reform is the mess that Tory policies have created over the past 15 years. The letter said that from October existing borrowers who were not on income support would get no benefit for two months, 50 per cent. for four months and 100 per cent. thereafter.
Many, although not all, of those people will get into debt. The letter states that for new loans after October people will get nothing for nine months, but I should like the Secretary of State to clarify that. I have been led to believe that those who take out mortgages after the Budget statement will not get benefit for nine months.
These are not reforms�žthey are cuts. If the Minister were serious about reform, he would look at the underlying reasons for the problems and listen to people who have pointed to Government policies over the past 15 years. I was not against some of those policies, such as the right to buy, which was introduced by Mrs. Thatcher. But the Government have been responsible for economic mismanagement, the boom and bust of the 1980s, record unemployment and a record recession. Their employment policies are designed to encourage people to accept low pay and part-time work and contract work, which many people are now accepting. That is leading to insecurity in employment and in the housing market.
Those factors are linked and lead to higher mortgage interest benefits, but instead of looking at them the Minister is considering cuts. In the past four years, 250,000 homes have been repossessed. The figure is coming down and that is welcome news. I hope that it will continue to come down, but I am afraid that this policy will lead to even more repossessions.
Some 1,250,000 mortgages are greater in value than the value of the homes that they represent. The available statistics show that the growth in the number of people buying homes between 1984 and 1991 was in the so-called blue collar sector—the people who have faced more unemployment. The Government tried to persuade them into home ownership through the right-to-buy scheme.
The Government must realise that unemployment is not usually the fault of the unemployed. Yet the proposals make it look as though that is what the Government think.

Unemployment is due to the economic climate. The policy will deal a further blow to the housing market and mortgage lenders are crying out about it. I gather that there was a fairly acrimonious meeting recently between the Secretary of State and the mortgage lenders, who stated that they thought that there would be thousands more repossessions and that that would cause a slump. I know that the lenders have a vested interest, but we must heed that warning.
The Secretary of State says that that cannot happen, that he will modify the Administration of Justice Act 1970 so that people will have longer to pay—perhaps even within the lifetime of the mortgage. That is fine so far as it goes, but mortgage lenders do not have to lend money and will pick and choose. The Government have always said that a thriving housing market is an indicator of economic recovery and they still keep saying so, but perhaps the Secretary of State does not agree. He will say that people should take out insurance, but that is not always available as illness or marriage break-up and unemployment is not always covered. We must face the fact that only 40 per cent. of those claiming benefit are unemployed.
Let us examine some existing insurance policies. Citizens advice bureaux have reported that people have been duped into buying policies with loopholes and that claims are not being met. One bureau reported the case of a man who had been made redundant. He did not want to sit around, so he got employment which lasted for some time but in different jobs. Eventually he became unemployed again, but he was not covered by his insurance because he was not in continuous employment for six months. That has not been addressed. Such happenings are not uncommon. How will such people survive? They will not if they do not have benefit and many will face repossession and homelessness. As I have said, that will be a further blow to the housing market.
One in three people buy insurance protection, but the policies are riddled with exclusions, as I have illustrated by my reference to the man who was made redundant. People are also ruled out by pre-existing medical conditions, illness in the previous 12 months or lack of continuous employment. It would bar people on fixed-term contracts, unless they run for a number of years. It would bar a number of building workers on contracts. It would bar a number of actors and people working in the media. Above all, the self-employed would suffer.
Those with mortgages will have to find an estimated £7,000 in insurance payments over 25 years. From October, the cost of a mortgage in real terms will be 10.5 per cent. higher than it is now, taking into account mortgage tax relief and other factors. That does not include the mortgage interest rate rise of 0.3 per cent. announced last Friday. At the same time, the Government are cutting housing benefit. Where will people go? Housing association grants are due to fall in 1996–97 to 1989–90 levels. Housing investment will fall because of the end of the capital receipts holiday. The Government's subsidy to council housing will continue to dwindle. Council and housing association rents continue to rise. If the rug is pulled from underneath home owners, they will find that there is no low-cost rented accommodation available for them. All of that will contribute to the lack of the feel-good factor about which the Government seem to be so worried.
If the Government are thinking about reforms, they should introduce real reforms and put people with mortgages on the same basis as tenants. They should introduce a benefit for mortgage holders—[Interruption.] I accept that it would have to be paid with the phasing out of MIRAS—[Interruption.] That is in our policy document and it has been for some time. We are suggesting that in the long term there should be a new benefit for householders and tenants alike, which would mean that everybody would be better off in work.
I agree with the view that currently people on income support who have help with their mortgages are not motivated to take low-paid work. With a merger of the two benefits in the long term, they would always be better off in work. There would be a taper in the same way as there is a taper on housing benefit. The cost of income support would be reduced because there would be an incentive for people to get back into employment.
All that the Government's policies will do is to impose a cost on people in the long term. There will be more repossessions and more homelessness. There will be a further destabilisation of the housing market. The Secretary of State's policy will cause misery and will not contribute to the feel-good factor about which the Government are always talking.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I have listened to the debate with interest and care. I was interested to note the inconsistency with which Labour Members attacked the Government and what they are trying to do. I have been in the Chamber for debates on subjects such as housing and inner-city matters when, time and again, Labour Members have criticised the Government for increasing the dependency culture. The number of people dependent on mortgage interest relief in 1979 totalled 100,000; in 1988 the figure was almost 400,000; and last year it was just short of half a million. It is obvious that there is an increasing dependency sector and the Government, as part of their proposals, are suggesting how that could be reduced. I should have thought that the Opposition, who have so strongly criticised the extension of the dependency culture, would applaud that—but they have said not a word.
With the new spending rectitude of the Labour party, broadcast daily throughout the media, one would have thought that there would be considerable concern about how expenditure has risen from £31 million in 1979 to more than £1 billion last year on this item alone. One would hope that the Opposition would be consistent in their arguments and say, "Hold on, the Government are sensibly trying to be responsible with public expenditure, so let us welcome the tough decision that the Government have taken." But no, throughout the debate Labour Members have insisted that this is just one more attack on a particular group of vulnerable people.
The Conservative party stands for home ownership. It stands for the ability of people to buy, own and live in homes happily and comfortably. Indeed, the record referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) stands for itself. Home ownership has risen from almost 55 per cent. to almost 67 per cent. I have argued many times that the experts might be wrong, but they say—and they are all agreed on this—that there is a ceiling on any predictable level of home ownership of about 70 per cent. On that basis, we

are only some 3 per cent. short of what the experts say we could conceivably achieve in home ownership, so we have done well in that area.
We must ensure that home owners are assisted, encouraged and live in the real world; that is what the proposal is about. I looked, I listened and I was prepared to criticise the Government if they had not included a transitional period, but they have. It is only with insurance taken out after 1 October this year that the rule will apply. It is vital that a fair, good and thoughtful Government provide a transitional period. We could not do that with milk quotas because the European Union would not allow it. As a result, many farmers were tied to their equivalent of mortgage or business loans.
That will not happen with the Government's proposal; there is to be a proper, phased introduction. The results are sensible, as I understand them, and it is why I support the Government. If any of our conclusions do not hold, we will have to think again, but in the round the results are such that I would argue strongly that we should back the Government's proposal.
Of course there will be savings—small to begin with, but larger by stages. There was an extraordinary paradox in the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I do not know whether my hon. Friends noticed it, but he began by saying that this was an horrific and damaging proposal for many people—yet only a paragraph later he said, "Well, the Government are going to save only a small amount of money." If that is true, why the horror? The point is that the proposal exercises something that we were elected to do—to spend responsibly.
We are becoming more sophisticated on the subject of debt. It is a most important subject that we need to deal with in this country. Young people in Germany do not borrow money to buy houses at the age of 25 or 30. The average age for doing so—and they do not buy that often—is nearer 35 or 40. It is certainly right to encourage the purchase of homes, but it is also about time we thought about responsibility in the acquisition of debt. Over the years, the Government have been consistent in their dislike of debt. That was why, in the face of opposition from Labour Members, we reduced the national debt at several stages during the 1980s. We do not like debt and we do not like young people getting into debt irresponsibly. The proposals will assist the culture of thinking about debt and of getting into it only when one is ready for it.
I am descended from a group of people with a Puritan past, which many hon. Members have. Those people did not like to borrow at all. People will have to consider the acquisition of a mortgage with the extra hurdle. They will have to think about the acceptance of the nine-month period that is included in Government's proposal. That is a sensible addition to the growing culture.
With regard to the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and of Labour Members, there may be a temporary effect on the macro-housing market. The proposal may lead to a points depression in that market, but as we are close to the 70 per cent. maximum purchase level, that effect would probably have occurred anyway. In the end, however, more people will take up mortgages, with more thought to the debt that they take on, and with more planning. I conclude, therefore, that


fewer people will claim, even though they could claim. As I said earlier, the proposal will strike a blow against the dependency culture.
The Conservative party is the party of home ownership and of spending responsibility. It is a party of debt responsibility. For all those reasons, I support the Government's proposals and oppose what has been said by the Labour party.

Mr. Bill Etherington: I must take exception to some of the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Social Security. It is almost beyond belief that he has the effrontery to stand up in the House and to say that he is seeking to improve the position for people unfortunate enough to become unemployed who have to pay a mortgage. It borders on the mendacious.
The Secretary of State talks about the two thirds of people who cannot benefit because they are not in receipt of income support. Obviously, those people do not need the relief. If they have redundancy payments and more than £3,000 in the bank, they may be able to manage for a few weeks. In case the Secretary of State is not aware, the income support level is below what is regarded by the European Union as a decent level. When those people go on income support, they will have difficulties, which shows how barren the thinking is behind the legislation.
Since 1979, a string of Bills have been introduced to worsen the plight of people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed. First, it must be said that unemployment is brought about by the Government's policies and not by people who happen to be unfortunate enough to become unemployed. That is an important factor, which the Secretary of State seems to overlook.
Two unedifying strands in the Government's philosophy seem to have come together in the Bill. The first is their lack of respect, concern or compassion for the unemployed, which borders on disdain. The second is their love of providing work for their friends in the City. That was shown when the Government sought to abrogate their responsibility in relation to the payment of state earnings-related pensions. Because it was costing the taxpayer too much money, the Government decided that private insurance should take over. What a disaster that has been, and what a cost to the taxpayer it has proved to be. Not many strands in the Government's thinking are philosophically satisfactory, but those two strands are the worst.
The Government are forever stating that they believe in a property-owning democracy. Some Labour Members also believe in that. Since 1967, I have been in the privileged position of having my own house. When I started to buy, however, the circumstances were much more propitious than they would be for anyone buying now. I issue a challenge to those on the Treasury Bench: I am willing to give way if the Minister will stand up and guarantee that every person who seeks and obtains a

£45,000 mortgage will be able to obtain for £12 per month satisfactory insurance which covers them against sickness and unemployment?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): rose—

Mr. Etherington: I am delighted.

Mr. Evans: There is a fatal fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's premise. If the hypothetical person in the example that he mentioned is granted a mortgage because his credit is sound and because he is in a reasonable position to expect reasonably to repay that mortgage, there is no reason to suppose, if a sensible lending judgment is made, that he cannot be insured as well.

Mr. Etherington: Those were weasel words. I asked for a guarantee, not a platitude, but that was what the Minister offered. No guarantee was given. The Government are in favour of people owning or paying for their own houses, and getting into debt. They support that so that those people can be controlled by their employers, so that the threat of the dole queue becomes ever worse, so that they can be forced into taking poor employment, and so that they are not in a position to fight back when an employer tries to worsen their conditions.
That is what this is all about. It is not about financial constraints. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has already pointed out that a small amount of money will be saved by the Treasury by the measure. It is not, however, a small amount of money to the victims who find, after a few weeks of unemployment, that they are likely to become homeless. That is how much the Government care about people's security. The Government do not give a damn for the citizens of this country unless they are making money for someone else—preferably the Government's friends in the City.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) mentioned that insurance companies can sometimes be a little fickle in the way in which they deal with policy holders. He understated the position. He said that if a miner became unemployed, the insurance company would try to find ways of abrogating its responsibilities. It is not quite so bad as that because the insurance company would not have condescended to give a policy to a miner in the first place. I do not speaking from anecdotal evidence, but from personal experience as in 1967 I sought to obtain just such a policy.
I have no doubt that some Conservative Members, who have made many interventions, who are hired hands of various insurance companies, and who are on their payrolls but do not bother to declare it on occasions in the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has just made a very serious allegation. I hope that he will either withdraw it or substantiate it.

Mr. Etherington: I shall substantiate it. A Conservative Member stood up on, I think, five occasions this afternoon during a debate on an important matter in


which the insurance industry is involved, and from which it benefits, but he has not declared an interest. I invite him to comment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House. Any hon. Member who makes a speech in the House is required to declare an interest. Hon. Members are not required to make such a declaration in an intervention. The hon. Gentleman should know the rules of the House and he should challenge only hon. Members who disobey those rules.

Mr. Etherington: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I am required to withdraw my remark, I shall do so. I hope that if the hon. Member concerned makes a speech he will clarify the matter for the benefit of the House.
On the notional figure of £45,000 of borrowing for a mortgage, it has been stated that the payment required will be about £12 a month, but people in the financial services business say that it will be £21 a month.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who alone of all Conservative Members spoke with compassion and some understanding for those who find themselves in the vulnerable position of having a large mortgage, on the payment of which the retention of their home depends. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he recognises their plight, but I am sorry that his understanding was not reflected in the speeches of other Conservative Members, least of all that of the Secretary of State.
The Government's proposals should be taken in conjunction with various pieces of legislation that have been introduced since 1979 and which discriminate against the unemployed. Together, they create a society to which fear is the key. If people do not have very good jobs but are paying a mortgage and have the threat of things being made so much worse if they become employed, the more fearful they will be of challenging their employers. That is what the proposals are all about.
I trust that people outside will see the proposals for what they are: they have nothing to do with improving the lot of those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed and have a large mortgage to service, but they have everything to do with further intimidation of those who are fortunate enough to be employed.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am happy to declare an interest as an adviser to Legal and General Group plc, which is an insurer and an arranger of mortgages. I am a little distressed that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), with whom I have had many debates in European Standing Committee B where I have often declared my interest, should not expect me to make that declaration. This time, I shall put his attitude down to the heat of the debate and leave it at that. I shall respond later to several comments that he made, especially that about the unattractive motive that he feels lies behind the Government's policy.
I deal first with a recurrent theme that was mentioned by opponents of the measure and others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), who represents the constituency which, perhaps more than any other, resonates with the principle of home ownership. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and my hon.

Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) also mentioned the effect that the measure is likely to have on the housing market.
I do not participate lightly in the debate. My constituency has probably suffered some of the biggest falls in property prices. Negative equity on a large scale is one of the major problems facing my constituents. My constituency was an area of considerable new build in the 1980s when houses were purchased at what we now regard as inflated prices, with the result that negative equity is a serious problem in huge parts of my constituency. Therefore, I would not dream of supporting a measure that would have a seriously deleterious effect on the housing market. It would not be in my interest to do so and as, I think, the hon. Member for Rochdale—but certainly the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—suggested, it would be extraordinary for a Conservative Government to propose such a measure.
The measure will have an extraordinarily slight effect in its first year. Indeed, the hon. Member for Garscadden derided the Government for the fact that the measure will remove a mere £18 million from the housing market in that time and will build only over a period of time—perhaps 10 years—to savings of perhaps £200 million. I should explain how that will happen.
In the first year, a small proportion of householders will be eligible under the scheme and only a small proportion of them might trigger the effects of the scheme. In the second year, perhaps twice as many households will fall on hard times and be eligible for the scheme. That is how the scheme will build and how savings will accumulate year by year. In that sense, the scheme will have a minimal impact in its first year of operation. It cannot be described as a knockout blow to the housing market when it is being introduced so gradually.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) complained that we have are not piloting the scheme, but, in effect, the first year of operation will be the pilot because such a tiny proportion of the housing market will be affected. It is important to keep this important, revenue-saving measure, which has other benefits that I shall discuss later, in perspective.
Before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, I must say that his somewhat hysterical comments about the state of the housing market, made in this place in what may be a delicate period of transition from decline to recovery, probably do more damage to confidence in the housing market than the scheme ever would.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not considering the measure on its own; I am considering it with the reduction in MIRAS, which is extremely unpopular and is having an impact, and with increases in mortgage interest rates, although they are as yet only nudging higher. Job security must also be taken into account. Although we do not often do so under a Conservative Government, dare I say that there has been an increase in taxation, which means that people have less to spend and are therefore less likely to buy a new house?

Mr. Jenkin: Interest rates have fallen substantially over the past three, four or five years. We may have to expect small increases in future to continue our successful anti-inflation policy, but we do not want to return to the 1980s when so much economic activity was diverted into speculative property investment. My hon. Friend praised


the Government for the export-led recovery, and we must ensure that investment in assets for export remains more attractive than investment in property for speculative gain. We should encourage people to invest in property in which they want to live rather than to invest in property for speculative purposes. We are succeeding in that, and this slight measure is probably not even relevant to the argument about incentives to invest in property.
Two main issues have arisen in our debate. The first involves equity of treatment for those in the rented sector and those with mortgages in owner-occupied properties. The hon. Member for Garscadden in particular implied that the benefit and tax system should treat similarly owner-occupiers and those in the rented sector. In fact, there is a certain balance. We give home owners generous support—some billions of pounds—through MIRAS, and it is entirely logical that those who benefit in one respect should accept a little more responsibility in another.
Secondly, what has been lacking in the debate is an appreciation of how the insurance and lending markets operate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) chuckles, but, if we had accepted Opposition Front Benchers' advice over the past 15 years whenever we placed our faith in the way in which the markets operate and can take over functions previously carried out by the state, we should not have privatised anything, contracted out anything or achieved anything. Economically, we would be in a substantially worse position today. Well may the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras laugh—at his own folly for all the mistakes made and bad advice given by his party to the country over the past 15 years.
The important thing is that the system will make more demands on lenders and borrowers. Just as during the recession lenders were required to make finer judgments about who they lent to and about who was a safe risk, the insurance markets will be required to do the same. It is hardly surprising that there is not a flourishing insurance market for mortgage insurance at the moment, when so much of the market has been displaced by state activity. That is what one would expect. When the state has been undertaking an activity, one would not expect the private sector to come in and take part.
The theme—I return to the comments by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—behind the proposals is to try to make borrowers and lenders make more responsible decisions on loans taken out and houses bought. We do not want a market—indeed, we cannot afford a market—which is insulated from all the consequences of its decisions by the state underwriting every risk taken by the consumer. That creates the problems which overheated the property market in the 1980s.
Finally, I shall deal briefly with the issue of mortgage benefit, which arose earlier. That is perhaps the maddest idea that the House has heard for some time. I have great sympathy for what the Labour party says about the number of people who find themselves on income-related, means-tested benefits. I agree that there are too many people on means-tested benefits. If we moved more towards a system of tax allowances and away from means-tested benefits, we would avoid the .indignity of means-testing for quite a number of people.
The proposal of mortgage benefit would increase the number of people—most of them probably already paying tax—on means-tested benefits and paying tax, thereby increasing the poverty trap and increasing all the problems which currently beset our benefits system. It would be a major step backwards. I urge the House to reject that idea and to support instead sensible measures such as the Government's proposals instead.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I begin by declaring an interest as a consultant to HACAS housing consultancy company, although, to the best of my knowledge, it does no work relevant to the debate. I have certainly undertaken no related work.
This has been an important and revealing, albeit short, debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spelt out with his characteristic incisiveness the main problems associated with the Government's proposals for home owners and the impact on the housing market. His concerns have been echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) and by the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), all of whom raised valid and extremely powerful points about the adverse impact of the Government's proposals. By contrast, the Secretary of State secured support only from the hon. Members for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).
The Secretary of State's speech was extraordinary in three ways. First, he had to reveal that even now, two months after the proposed changes were first announced in the Budget, he is far from clear about the precise details of how the scheme will work in practice and what will be its various impacts. Secondly, even more extraordinary, coming as it does from an apologist—

Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Gentleman complaining that we are consulting about the details? That is extraordinary given that Labour Members often make the allegation�žfalse, of course—that we come out with things, which were thought out in great detail, without consultation.

Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State made great play in his speech of the adverse effect on the market of scares. He has introduced proposals which have scared the market substantially. He only has to talk to the House-Builders Federation, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and all the experts, to reinforce that point. It would have been wise on his part to have thought a little more carefully about the precise details of what he proposed before coming forward with them. That is the point that I am making. He does not appear to have worked out precisely what he is proposing to do.
Secondly, and even more extraordinary, coming as it does from an apologist for the market, the Secretary of State showed little understanding of the consequences of his proposals on the housing market. Thirdly, and perhaps most extraordinary of all, he chose to present himself rather like a latter-day Mr. Bumble; as a benefactor of the poor. In that famous section in "Oliver Twist", one recalls Mr. Bumble expressing the great principle of outdoor relief, as it was then, and social security as we would call it now, which is
to give the paupers exactly what they don't want; and then they get tired of coming.


The Secretary of State appears to believe, and certainly tried to make the House believe, that his cuts in income support discussed today were really an act of kindness to struggling home owners in difficulty. That is nothing to do with reality. The proposals are not necessary. They are ill thought out, they are confused, they are unlikely to achieve the savings that they are supposed to generate, they will be difficult to implement and they are likely to cause severe administrative problems, widespread anomalies and immeasurable anguish to thousands of families.
The proposals are not necessary because the rising trend in income support expenditure is already beginning to reverse. From a peak of £1.22 billion in 1993, expenditure has fallen to £1.08 billion in 1994—by far more than the savings that the Secretary of State expects to achieve this year. If measures were now being taken to help recovery in the housing market, as well as to tackle the continuing scourge of unemployment, we could expect further substantial reductions over the next few years, achieving savings far in excess of the £200 million that the Secretary of State is claiming that he will save. That figure has already turned out to be a rather elusive target.
The proposals are ill thought out and confused. Under the Secretary of State's proposal, most existing home owners will receive no benefit for the first two months and then only 50 per cent. for the next four months. Thereafter, even though they will qualify in full for income support, it will be calculated on a standard rate which could be significantly below their outgoings, especially if people have opted for fixed-rate mortgages.
Pensioner claimants, we now understand, will not lose entitlement in the first two months, but they will, apparently, have their benefit assessed on the standard rate. That makes a mockery of the claim in the Government's amendment that pensioners on income support will not be adversely affected because those who have mortgages at higher rates than the standard rate will be adversely affected.
New borrowers after October will have no entitlement at all for the first nine months. We have not yet heard whether that restriction will apply to new borrowers who subsequently reach retirement age. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to tell us whether future pensioners will be subject to that restriction. We do not know.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Lilley: Yes, they will.

Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to hear it. We have achieved, at least, a certain further clarification.

Mr. Lilley: Not at all. I said it during my speech and the hon. Member was not listening.

Mr. Raynsford: We are delighted to tease out some of the more obscure features of the Secretary of State's proposals.
We must ask why the Secretary of State is introducing this complex series of arrangements, riddled with anomalies, ostensibly to save £200 million. Once again, confusion reigns. The Secretary of State cannot tell us precisely how that saving will be achieved. He expresses hope that, in the long term—over three years, he says—the figure will be reached. But he has some difficulty with the arithmetic, because in the written answer of 15

December in column 794, he indicated a saving of £18 million in the first year for new borrowers, which must be the main category of saving.
We accept that the figure may be larger in the second year, but if, as the hon. Member for Colchester, North suggested, the figure doubled, it would reach only £36 million. Even if it were to double again in the third year, we would still be a very long way short of £200 million. So the Secretary of State has a certain amount of explaining to do about where the mythical £200 million will come from.
Not only can the Secretary of State not provide good answers on those figures, he cannot provide convincing answers either to questions on the likely additional costs which will flow from what he is proposing. There will be costs, and the Department will have to bear some of them. It is clear that the measures will lead to an increase in repossessions.

Mr. Lilley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State may shake his head, but the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which is in a far better position than he is to make an estimate, states that the increase could be between 12,000 and 24,000. I would rather believe the Council of Mortgage Lenders than the Secretary of State on that particular issue.
If the council's upper figure is correct, that would push repossessions back to the level reached in 1991 when they were at their peak. That in itself is bad enough, but when we think about the consequences, the full stupidity of the proposal becomes clear. Many of the home owners who will forfeit their homes as a result of the Secretary of State's plans could find themselves in a bed-and-breakfast hotel or other temporary accommodation. While the average weekly cost of income support for home owners towards mortgage interest is £37.98, the average weekly cost of keeping a family in a bed-and-breakfast hotel is £231. In other words, it is £193 more or, in annual terms, an extra £10,036.
If just 1,800 home owners end up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a result of the Secretary of State's action, he will have wiped out entirely the supposed £18 million from withdrawing help for the first nine months for new home owners. That is an indication of the stupidity of the proposals because we need only think of the personal cost to the families concerned if they are condemned to bed-and-breakfast hotels and cannot stay in the family home.
The Secretary of State would have us believe that that will not happen because a new and thriving insurance industry will come to the rescue. Once again, the problem is that the Secretary of State has not done his sums and has apparently only the flimsiest grasp of the realities in the market place. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), has made it clear that, for many individuals, mortgage protection policies are unavailable or inadequate. According to NACAB,
Many citizens advice bureaux report clients who have taken out mortgage protection policies in good faith only to find that when they come to make a claim, the policy fails to pay out.
Many others do not even get that far. I received a letter last week, which I suspect is typical, from a home owner in Cumbria, who said:
When I bought my home last year my mortgage company"—


which happens to be a very large and reputable building society�ž
required that I should take out redundancy insurance. I agreed. No policy however could be found which would provide me with cover. My job? I am a primary teacher with years of experience who had a short break to have children. On my return to work I was given a temporary fixed term contract. The Secretary of State does not seem to realise that a large number of teachers and other workers will not qualify for redundancy insurance simply because the natural termination of a fixed term contract is not considered to be redundancy. He offers no solution to those of us in a very unpleasant situation.
How many other employees in an increasingly deregulated market, where fixed-term contracts are ever more common, will find that they are uninsurable or can obtain insurance only at a prohibitive premium? As the Secretary of State has been reminded frequently in the past two months, unemployment is only one of the factors leading to claims for income support from home owners.
Of the 548,000 claimants receiving such help last year, less than half were unemployed. Eighteen per cent. were over retirement age, 22 per cent. were lone parents and 19 per cent. were claiming for other reasons, mainly disability. The Secretary of State has yet to give us hard evidence in relation to where people will obtain insurance cover against the risk of a relationship breakdown or disability. All that he can offer is his optimistic hope—no hard evidence, just his hope—that new insurance products will emerge to cover many of those risks. However, I doubt whether many potential buyers would put their shirts, let alone their houses, on his hopes.
I challenge the Secretary of State to put this challenge to some of his colleagues. If he suggests to his colleagues, and particularly those in seats with majorities of less than 15,000, that they seek insurance cover at the moment, he might he interested to learn the terms that would be offered—if any of them qualified for cover at all.
What about the impact: on the housing market? In its brief, the House-Builders Federation makes the point that it is evident to anyone with an understanding of what is happening at the present time in the market that it is, in the federation's words,
Showing increasing weakness, reflecting lack of confidence, job insecurity and the possibility of a further reduction in MIRAS in April. The timing of these proposals"—

Mr. Jenkin: It would say that.

Mr. Raynsford: They are not my words, they are the words of the House-Builders Federation. The federation has a direct interest in a flourishing house building industry. It states:
The timing of these proposals is particularly unfortunate and they are likely to cause more house purchases to be deferred.
The federation continues:
the measures will go on to discriminate against those households wishing or needing to move and will slow down housing transactions even further.
Against that background, what is needed is a positive package of policies to restore confidence in the housing market. The Secretary of State is offering the opposite. In addition to the threatened increase in interest rates, and

the further cut in MIRAS in April, the income support changes constitute a lethal cocktail which will poison any prospect of recovery in the market this year.

Mr. Lilley: That is scaremongering.

Mr. Raynsford: According to the Secretary of State I am scaremongering by quoting the words of the House-Builders Federation. That is an indication of how extraordinarily badly informed the Secretary of State is about the market. The story in today's Daily Star about his reluctance to meet representatives of the House-Builders Federation is perhaps another indication of the problem. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State intervenes from a sedentary position, but I understand from the director of the House-Builders Federation that a meeting was arranged hastily this morning after the article appeared in the Daily Star.

Mr. Lilley: I had received no request from the federation to see me. On reading the article, I telephoned the federation to say that my door is always open to any organisation, such as the federation, which wanted to see me. I said that if the federation wished to come and see me, it was welcome to do so. I am pleased if the hon. Gentleman has discovered that the federation is willing to come, but those are the facts and I hope that he will now withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State said that he received no request for a meeting. Any sensible Secretary of State doing what he is doing would have asked for the federation's opinion before he acted.
The measures which the Secretary of State is proposing, and which we are debating tonight, are ill-conceived and incoherent and will, if carried through, have a devastating impact on thousands of families whose dream of home ownership will turn into the nightmare of repossession. That comes from a Government who have presided over the worst-ever crisis of mortgage debt and repossessions in the country's history. It comes from a Government whose Prime Minister claimed in January 1992 on "Desert Island Discs" of all extraordinary places:
We've stopped, if you recall, the repossessions just before Christmas.
Since then, 176,000 former home owners, many now languishing in miserable and expensive temporary accommodation, can bear witness to the falsehood of that pre-election claim. It comes from a Government with no constructive thoughts on how to stimulate recovery in the housing market—recovery that is vital to liberate the millions of home owners who are trapped in negative equity.
The only good thing to be said for the package is that it will, if carried through, put paid to any prospect of a feel-good factor returning to the housing market and, by so doing, it will hasten the end of this discredited Tory Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): It is pretty rich of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) to talk about positive packages for the housing market after that grossly exaggerated negative conclusion to his speech. How he believes that it will improve the housing market to talk of a lethal cocktail of poison, I leave to everyone's imaginings.
In his analysis, the hon. Member for Greenwich wholly failed to deal with the Government's two main arguments. The first relates to how to deal with the inexorable rise in the cost of income support mortgage payments. Does he believe that that rise should continue? Does he believe that the taxpayer should continue to support it at that level without any further restraint?
The second point with which the hon. Gentleman failed to deal relates to the 70 per cent. of those who are not on income support and who are not covered by the present arrangements. The Government are proposing to deal fairly with both those problems.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) powerfully expressed, when there is such state activity, it is hardly surprising that private enterprise tends to be displaced. The home protection insurance market has undoubtedly been affected by the existing scheme. What is sought to be insured must be borne in mind. What is proposed is short-term insurance to cover the nine months for new borrowers. That is a finite and insurable period. It is something which the market can reasonably be expected to make arrangements to cover.

Mr. Denham: The Minister has said that we can reasonably expect the market to insure the nine-month period. Will he confirm that one cannot buy a policy for the first three months of that nine-month period?

Mr. Evans: Policies vary enormously. Not all of them are couched in the terms to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
The Abbey National says that 40 per cent. of its new borrowers are now taking out mortgage protection policies. The Association of British Insurers makes it clear that about a third of its new borrowers are taking out such insurance. General Accident has insurance cover at £4 for every £100 of repayment.
It is reasonable to expect that, as the market develops and as competition comes into play, the price of policies will go down, and the terms of such policies will steadily improve. The fundamental fact with which the Opposition have not dealt is that it is in the interests of lenders—one would never have imagined it, judging from what was said earlier—that the type of policies that their borrowers take up, which, after all, are designed to pay those lenders, do not have the exclusions about which we have heard so much. In other words, the market will demand that improvement in insurance policies, and we can reasonably expect that to happen.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister will agree that the crux of the argument is what happens in the limited period at the start of the unemployment or ill health—the nine-month period. The Association of British Insurers says that almost all policies have between 60 and 90 days in which no payment will be made. Is it the Government's intention to negotiate an agreement with the industry so that that gap will not exist?

Mr. Evans: It is the Government's intention to stimulate the market. It is perfectly possible—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen for a moment, instead of assuming the ignorance of the market. The self-employed and contract workers can take out sickness insurance policies that come into play after three days, three months or six months, depending on the relevant terms. The market is well used to and quite capable of introducing products to deal with that matter.
The Opposition's attack on the insurance market is quite astonishing. No doubt it will be noted in the City. No doubt it will be noted, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) put it, as working for our friends in the City. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) deplored the costs of private insurance administration. He agrees with the proposition of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. He apparently thinks that nationalising insurance or doing it collectively would be cheaper. He also attacked the terms of policies, but I stress that mortgagees have an incentive to improve the terms of those policies. The fact remains that the self-employed and, indeed, contract workers, can take out policies for all sorts of contingencies.
The hon. Member for Greenwich said that one cannot insure against divorce, and no one should be able to do so. A prudent couple will take out insurance to deal with contingencies, including the consequences of such a situation. [Interruption.] One can obtain insurance because one is unemployed or because the mortgage is not being paid. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) appears to be wholly ignorant of the basic terms of policies.
Let us take the matter one stage further. The Government are committed to consulting on the details of the arrangements. Pensioners on income support mortgage interest payments are and will be fully protected. We shall consult in respect of other vulnerable groups.
I advise the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) that all new transactions after October 1995 will be classified as new from that date, not the date of the Budget statement, and we shall consult on protection for those on benefit who, for example, become disabled and require expenditure on improvements.
The Government welcome the opportunity to talk with the Council of Mortgage Lenders about the details of the scheme. We accept that, from October, the 1991 agreement will need to be negotiated, but there is a strong element of common interest among borrowers, lenders and the Government: repossessions are failures for mortgagors and mortgagees. A repossession inevitably leads to a vacant sale, which never recovers as much as a sale with the person in possession. An alarming number of repossessions—one building society put it as high as 30 per cent.—have come about as a result of borrowers simply walking away, leaving the place empty, and leaving mortgagees with no option but to repossess and to sell. That does not help the borrower, because he incurs alternative housing costs and his liability to the lender continues.
There is room for considerable improvement in the public's understanding of the rights and obligations of all parties to such arrangements. There is also scope for better practice in the management of mortgage arrears and repossessions. In November 1993, the Government tightened the county court rules. To answer the question of the hon. Member for Rochdale, we have no proposals to alter the Administration of Justice Act 1970, but mortgagees have realised that the courts possess wide powers to give some mercy to borrowers who are in difficulties. It is very unfortunate for the Council of Mortgage Lenders that the public appreciate the considerable forbearance that building societies and other lending institutions have already shown.
There are positive signs. Mr. Adrian Coles, the director of the CML, stressed that people may move from the standard 25-year mortgage. There is no reason why different, more flexible mortgage terms should not be arranged, for example giving the option of making higher payments when in work to meet a holiday period if a contingency such as unemployment strikes. It may be much better to focus discounts not so much on first-time borrowers but on the contingencies of life such as childbirth, when a wife ceases to work for a period. 'There is absolutely no reason why there should not be variations of the repayment period.
Instead of that constructive approach, we have heard from the Opposition nothing but doom and gloom about the housing market. The hon. Member for Rochdale described the proposals as a further blow to the housing market. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who no doubt stirred Tory souls by saying that the ownership of property brought enhanced self-respect, nevertheless hardly assisted house building or the mortgage industry by referring to yet another nail in the coffin of the housing market. The reality was met by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North, who pointed out that it is not desirable to have an overheated, excessive housing market that distorts the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield may find an interesting conflict in his priorities between manufacturing industry and housing.
The Opposition's prevailing theme has been consistently to talk down the state of the housing market. No Conservative Member can see how that could benefit any prospective home owner, anybody engaged in house building, or the economy generally. The facts are nothing like as black as the picture that the Opposition painted. Housing starts in the first nine months of 1994 were up 13 per cent. in the private sector. Indeed, they are the highest since 1989. Negative equity and repossession figures are tending in the right direction. The Government's support on MIRAS, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said was being reduced, is still at £3 billion per annum. Under the proposals, the Government's commitments under the income support mortgage payment arrangements will still run at not much less than £1 billion a year.
On top of that, mortgage rates are at their lowest for many years and, perhaps above all else, the ratio between average earnings and average house prices is now classically at the most favourable point, because undoubtedly the cycle will turn as confidence returns. What the housing market needs and what home owners and borrowers with mortgages need is confidence, not the doom and gloom that we have heard from Opposition Members.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 277.

Division No. 52]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainger, Nick
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin





Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bayley, Hugh
Gordon, Mildred


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Graham, Thomas


Bell, Stuart
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bennett, Andrew F
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Berry, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blunkett, David
Grocott, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Gunnell, John


Boyes, Roland
Hall, Mike


Bradley, Keith
Hanson, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harvey, Nick


Burden, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Byers, Stephen
Henderson, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Heppell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hodge, Margaret


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cann, Jamie
Hood, Jimmy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chidgey, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoyle, Doug


Church, Judith
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ann
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Adam


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbett, Robin
Jamieson, David


Corston, Jean
Janner, Greville


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Cummings, John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,CS)


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kirkwood, Archy


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dowd, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eastham, Ken
McAvoy, Thomas


Enright, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Etherington, Bill
Macdonald, Calum


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McKelvey, William


Fatchett, Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McMaster, Gordon


Fisher, Mark
McNamara, Kevin


Flynn, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McWilliam, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Madden, Max


Foulkes, George
Maddock, Diana


Fraser, John
Mahon, Alice


Fyfe, Maria
Mandelson, Peter


Galloway, George
Marek, Dr John


Gapes, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gerrard, Neil
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martlew, Eric


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maxton, John


Godsiff, Roger
Meacher, Michael






Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll  Bute)
Short, Clare


Milburn, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, 


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mullin, Chris
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stevenson, George


O'Hara, Edward
Stott, Roger


Olner, Bill
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickthall, Colin
Timms, Stephen


Pike, Peter L
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Vaz, keith


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, Joan


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Radice, Giles
Watson, Mike


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rendel, David
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wise, Audrey


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Worthington, Tony


Rogers, Allan
Wray, Jimmy


Rooker, Jeff
Wright, Dr Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. George Mudie and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Joe Benton.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butler, Peter


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coe, Sebastian


Bates, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Congdon, David


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Booth, Hartley
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Day, Stephen


Brandreth, Gyles
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brazier, Julian
Delvin, Tim


Bright, Sir Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brown, M (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Dover, Den





Duncan, Alan
Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait,Mrs Jacqui


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Madel, Sir David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas






Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trend, Michael


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Soames, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Sir Derek
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waterson, Nigel


Spink, Dr Robert
Watts, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stephen, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stewart, Allan
Widdecombe, Ann


Streeter, Gary
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Sweeney, Walter
Willetts, David


Sykes, John
Wilshire, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomason, Roy
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House condemns the Opposition's wish to continue the inadequate existing system of Income Support Mortgage Interest, which does not protect those with modest savings, those with small pensions or redundancy payments, or those with a working spouse, which has undermined the spread of private mortgage insurance and has contributed to 50,000 homes a year being repossessed; believes that the Government's proposals will lead to the development of more comprehensive, less costly insurance cover; welcomes the fact that pensioners on income support will continue to have their mortgage interest paid; and reaffirms its commitment to home ownership.

Rural England

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?

Mr. Atkins: When we think of England, we think often of the countryside. Our countryside has seen great changes over the past 50 years and it will face new challenges as we enter the next century. We must face those challenges with optimism and a clear sense of direction.
That is why the Government have decided to produce a White Paper on the future of the English countryside. The English countryside is at a crossroads. Traditional industries are declining. There are demands for new jobs, new homes and more leisure opportunities. We must ensure that our countryside provides a good quality of life for people today and that it is ready to meet the challenges of the future, but we must take care that we do not destroy the qualities which make our countryside so valuable.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8 December—that the Education Department will be closely involved with the steering group—will be extremely important to people like me, and my hon. Friend, who believe in rural schools? Does he condemn the efforts made by Lancashire county council to attack and destroy village schools?

Mr. Atkins: As a constituent of my hon. Friend, as well as a parliamentary neighbour, I am only too well aware of the pressure on village schools in Lancashire and elsewhere. My hon. Friend is a renowned and doughty fighter for the village schools in her constituency, and she makes an important point to which I shall return later. It is an entirely fair point, and we shall be considering it. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who will be winding up the debate, will be more than happy to support my hon. Friend's concerns.
The aim of the White Paper is to set out our vision for the medium to long-term future of our countryside. It will not be about quick fixes. Instead, it will look 15 to 20 years ahead to the sort of countryside that we want our children to enjoy. It will examine the pressures on the countryside and review the Government's responses to those pressures. It will set a framework for future policies.
Most importantly, the White Paper will help ensure that all policies which affect the countryside are part of an overall strategy. Our policies need to support each other and not pull in different directions. The White Paper is being co-ordinated jointly by my Department and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The presence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary demonstrates that. It involves, and must continue to involve, many other Departments right across Government.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the greatest worry of people—particularly in the


south-west, but in most rural areas—which is the spread of the concrete jungle? As an illustration, I fought my constituency in 1967, when it had an electorate of 63,000. If I had the same parishes in my constituency today, the electorate would be 118,000. That is the kind of growth we are having in the south-west, and the concrete jungle is eating into the countryside. When planning applications come to the Department, they seem to be approved without enough thought being given to the protection of rural England, which is what we all wish to see.

Mr. Atkins: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I must point out that there are many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate, and long interventions do not help.

Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is a distinguished and long-serving Member, and he speaks with considerable authority about rural matters, which he has represented in constituency terms in this place for many years. I was in my right hon. Friend's constituency during the summer, and I saw for myself the sort of pressures about which he talks. I shall be addressing some of my later remarks to planning, but he has put his finger on the concerns. The pressure from those who have moved from the town, or from those who are visiting the countryside from the town, is matter which my right hon. Friend and other hon. Friends have raised.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend keeps talking about our countryside, but why have we excluded Scotland and Wales? Why have we also excluded forestry from the debate?

Mr. Atkins: I have enough trouble looking after the problems in England without being concerned personally with Scotland and Wales. The Ministers responsible for rural matters in those two parts of the United Kingdom are only too well aware of the concerns which my hon. Friend wishes to raise. My task is to be responsible for the English countryside, and I shall certainly make sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware of my hon. Friend's concern.
It is important to realise that my hon. Friend, as an English Member, has been able to raise his particular concerns about Scotland and Wales. Perhaps—under the proposals from the Opposition—that might not be the case in future, and that is an important point. My hon. Friend will know that forestry throughout the UK is led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that adds more fuel to the point that I just made.
Where were we? [Laughter.] There is a penalty in giving way to so many hon. Friends.
People in the countryside tend not to shout as loud as well-organised and influential urban lobby groups. In a world dominated by towns and cities, it is all too easy to overlook the needs of rural areas. Country folk think that no one is listening and that their interests have been forgotten or neglected, but that has changed since I was appointed Minister for the Environment and Countryside. I have made it my top priority to get out into the countryside—from Northumberland to the Isles of Scilly, from Shropshire to Kent—to discover the real needs of rural England.
One thing that I have learnt is that there is no single voice for the English countryside. Some people want more development, others want less. To some people, the countryside is a place to enjoy, to others it is the place where they live and work, and it is the latter to whom I am paying particular attention.
Many people have a stake in the future of our countryside. That is why we have asked more than 300 organisations to tell us what they think should be in the White Paper. We have also publicised it through national, regional and specialist press and invited people to write to us directly with their views. At the last count, we had received about 200 responses from organisations and individuals alike and we know that many more are on the way.
In addition, we are arranging a series of regional seminars during the next few months, which will provide a further opportunity for Ministers from my Department and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to listen to people who know and understand the countryside.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I are delighted to have this opportunity to hear the views of hon. Members. Many Members, on both sides of the political divide, represent rural constituencies and I look forward to an informed and constructive debate. It is particularly helpful to have this debate during the early stages of our work on the White Paper. I cannot promise that we shall be able to deliver everything that people ask for, but my hon. Friend and I will take away the promising ideas that I am sure will arise—especially from the Benches behind me—to explore with our ministerial colleagues in other Departments.
The Environment Bill is being discussed in another place and contains provisions to safeguard our national parks and protect hedgerows. We appreciate the heritage provided by our national parks. They are frequently termed, with justification, as the jewels in the crown of our landscape. When they were established 45 years ago, however, few people can have imagined the pressures that they face today. The Bill therefore provides for the establishment of independent national park authorities, which will provide the framework within which a more integrated approach can be taken to the management of those areas. For the first time, it will also oblige Government Departments and other public bodies to have regard to the purposes of the parks when operating within them.
The national parks can thrive only by maintaining a sensible balance between the purposes of conservation and recreation, for which they have been designated, and the needs of local communities. That is why we also propose a duty requiring the new national park authorities to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the local communities.
We are also honouring our commitment to protect hedgerows. They can be an important part of the fabric of the countryside as a wildlife habitat, a valuable landscape feature or simply a reflection of our history. The Environment Bill includes powers enabling us to introduce a statutory scheme to protect important hedgerows in England and Wales. We intend to introduce a scheme that is reasonable, practical and fair—a scheme that minimises the burden on those who will be subject to the controls and those who will administer them. The


detailed arrangements will be settled only after we have listened carefully to views expressed as the Bill progresses through Parliament and during separate public consultation.
The Government are committed to the protection of our hedgerows and to the future of our national parks. Traditionally, our policies to protect the countryside have worked through designating particular areas. The White Paper provides an opportunity to consider how far we want to move further in that direction and whether we want to consider new approaches that will help to safeguard the assets in the wider countryside.
Environmentally sensitive areas and countryside stewardship point the way towards a new approach, providing incentives for farmers and land managers, who are the stewards of the English countryside and who, over the centuries, have helped to create the countryside as we now know it—a fact often forgotten or ignored by urban dwellers. The White Paper will assess the roles of regulation, advice and incentives and map out a strategy to make the most effective use of our resources.
In addition to special programmes to protect the countryside, we must ensure that the major forms of land use are conducted, as far as possible, in a way that enhances the environment. That is particularly true of agriculture, as about 73 per cent. of the land surface of England is farmed. We may need to study the prospects for new crops and positive alternatives, such as forestry, which can offer a range of benefits.
The White Paper will consider the future priorities for land use in the countryside. In doing so, it will need to take into account the likely future course of the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has established a policy group of independent experts to advise him on future developments and the United Kingdom priorities for change. The results of that review will feed into the White Paper.
The planning system is one of the main ways in which we protect our countryside, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said in his intervention. I hear many different views of its effectiveness, as do many of my hon. Friends. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, for example, tells me that the planning system needs to be strengthened, but the Country Landowners Association tells me that it should be more permissive. We shall be dealing with that problem in the rural White Paper.
More development is necessary in rural areas if it is to provide new homes and new jobs, but that development must be in the right place and be of good quality, if it is to fit in to the English country landscape. That means design that responds to local styles and materials and I have some plans for that.
People in the countryside—perhaps not so differently to those in other parts of the country—are sometimes accused of NIMBYism. Often, it is not the principle of new buildings to which they object, but the imposition of ugly developments that look totally inappropriate. We are lucky to have inherited a country with a myriad of local

styles and we should celebrate that diversity, enhance the natural environment and, above all, resist the advancement of drab uniformity.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend undertake to be especially vigilant about road schemes? Does he agree that some of the motorways that have been driven through our countryside have done more to despoil and desecrate it than any other development?

Mr. Atkins: My instinctive reaction is to agree with my hon. Friend—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in his place who, in a previous incarnation, was the Minister responsible for some of that. In many rural areas, a bypass enhances the environment and adds greatly to it, but in other instances, proposed developments do not.
I found that out when, at the behest of the Labour-controlled county council, it was proposed that a six-lane motorway be driven through my constituency. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, then the Minister responsible for roads, was able to help me to defeat the proposal. It is a question of the local view prevailing. Sometimes it is a good thing and sometimes it is bad. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is only too aware of his concerns, which are shared on both sides of the House.

Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friend mentioned the views of the local people. He will know that recently a development was approved in Ambleside in my constituency, which was opposed 100 per cent. by the local people. He said how important it is to listen to the local people, but in that case they were ignored, in spite of a series of planning inquiries. Will he undertake that the planning laws will be studied, with a view to giving more consideration to the views of local people?

Mr. Atkins: I cannot but agree with my right hon. Friend. I do not know the case to which he refers, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend, the Viscount Ullswater, who is responsible for planning matters, is aware of it. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will tell me more about it later. His general argument is entirely fair and, as a Minister responsible for planning in a previous incarnation, as well as being involved in a council planning committee, I know only too well of its importance. One of the intentions, in the rural White Paper, is to ensure that we pay more attention, in all the multiplicity of areas that are important in the countryside, to what local people have to say. As usual, my right hon. Friend makes a particularly good point.
The creation of green belts around major conurbations, to check urban sprawl, is one of the major achievements of our planning system. They have assisted greatly in protecting the countryside. Earlier this week, we published revised planning policy guidance that reaffirmed our resolute commitment to green belts and made limited changes to strengthen policy for the 21st century and secure yet greater environmental and economic benefits.
There are sometimes tensions between those who live in the countryside and those who visit it. I have heard the pleas that the countryside should not become a giant theme park,


but we must recognise that, as people's leisure time increases, they will wish to visit the countryside more and more. About 590 million journeys to the countryside were made last year and I have no doubt that that number will increase in the future.
I was in the peak district park not long ago, and was astonished to learn that, as many of my hon. Friends who represent the area will know, it is the second largest park of its kind anywhere in the world—second only to a park in Japan. The pressures on it are great indeed. We cannot ignore this trend and hope that it will go away, but we can manage it to secure the maximum benefit for rural areas, while still conserving those qualities which attract the visitor in the first place. The livelihoods of those who live and work there must come first.
The White Paper will also look at the urban fringe, an area which has yet to realise its full potential.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that when it comes to access to the countryside, we have an excellent right of way and bridleway network? More and more farmers, especially in East Anglia, are very responsibly maintaining those rights of way. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's proposal for the right to roam the countryside is sheer lunacy, and that it would destroy the good will that has been built up between the public and the farming community?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is a consistently staunch defender of the countryside interest. He knows it as well as, if not better than, anyone else in the House. His point was on the nail—I could not but agree with it.
The White Paper will also look at the urban fringe, an area yet to realise its full potential. There is great scope to provide leisure opportunities on the fringes as well as in the heart of our cities. That will reduce the demands on the countryside and breathe new life into a part of our urban areas which has been neglected for too long. Community forests are a good example of how to exploit the potential of the urban fringe, but I am sure there is plenty of scope to do more.
Our vision of the countryside, particularly if we live in towns and cities, usually focuses on beautiful landscapes, sometimes of the chocolate box variety, but people are just as important. They maintain the land and the traditions of rural life—not least country pursuits, crafts and country sports.

Sir Peter Emery: Hunting and shooting.

Mr. Atkins: As my right hon. Friend says. Today's countryside is filled with people as varied as blacksmiths and computer programmers, although I sometimes ask myself how easy it would be for a blacksmith to get planning permission these days: the smells, the noise, and so on. The strength of our countryside lies in its diversity—the variety of people and economic activity as much as the variety of its landscapes.
I have travelled quite extensively around the English countryside in recent months.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Not more trips!

Mr. Atkins: Well, they bear repeating, since I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not moved out of Leicestershire.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my hon. Friend be extremely careful to distinguish Leicestershire from the city of Leicester?

Mr. Atkins: Yes. In the course of my perambulations, I have been able to hear at first hand some of the concerns of country dwellers. For instance, when I was in Northumberland in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), we saw the pressures that Hadrian's wall is bringing to bear on local activities, and the consequences for tourism. We also went to a village shop in Otterburn and saw the importance of the Army to what goes on there. We listened to people's views.
I also went to Todmorden moor and saw for myself the problems on the edge of the Pennines. I saw how local people, with the aid of Rural Action, are dealing with the problems of fly-tipping by those who pass through the area. Then I went to the Malvern hills, to see the problems of tourism and to visit a small cider maker and taste her wares, which I publicly endorse whenever I get the opportunity. I saw how much can be achieved in such a small operation.
I went to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to see a small cheese maker; I went away with some excellent Somerset cheese of a prize-winning variety. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Name it."] I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be happy to help out my hon. Friends.
One of my most enjoyable visits was the one to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, to see the problems and to talk to the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). Arguably, one of my most fascinating visits was to west Dorset, in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer). He is a well-known member of the Parachute Corps, and he asked me to meet his constituents, to enjoy the delights of the area and to see the problems of the coastline. We talked to local people. I am only sorry that in the course of so doing, my hon. Friend stumbled and injured himself—for which I apologise.
All these activities allowed me to see and hear at first hand what the problems were, and to realise the strengths of the countryside. There are some wonderful people out there. There is great heart there, and a great deal of which to be proud.
Many of these rural communities see an adequate supply of affordable housing as the key issue. Of course that is linked with jobs, transport and the location of schools, shops and health care facilities. Policies for rural housing need to be considered against the background of the changes that are taking place in the countryside. We need to take account of the needs of those who have traditionally lived and worked in the countryside and who wish to continue to do so.
There are costs as well as benefits to living in the countryside. People complain about the closure of village shops and village schools, the lack of public transport, the shortage of affordable housing and the difficulties of building new premises for businesses and new houses.
There are no easy answers to those problems—although I am sure that Opposition Members will try to offer some. We know that there are none. To some extent, those problems are a reflection of higher standards of living and increased choices. The car has given many people greater mobility and has enabled them to make journeys to shops and schools which would have been inaccessible to their parents, but this freedom has its price. If people drive to the supermarket on the edge of town rather than use their village shop, the village shop will inevitably close. The same is true of village schools and local buses. The slogan "Use it or lose it" is not new but it lies at the heart of the battle to maintain village services. We can all help.
The Government need to think carefully about their role in protecting services in the countryside. Would it be right to subsidise village shops but not corner shops in cities? Indeed, why should not people shop in supermarkets, where there is greater choice at cheaper prices? When is it right for extra resources to go into village schools to enable them to deliver good quality education rather than releasing resources to enhance the provision for children attending large schools? In answering those questions, it is necessary to be aware of the value of village services to the local community.
These are not easy judgments to make. We need to take account of people's changing expectations, the extent to which reduced choices lead to market failures and the extent to which urban dwellers should cross-subsidise people who live in the countryside.
In many cases, the way forward is to build on the strengths of the countryside, rather than to impose urban solutions where they do not fit. Adaptability and a sense of community are at the heart of rural life in many areas. I know that my hon. Friends would endorse that. Schemes such as the Home Secretary's parish constables initiative build on the fact that people in rural communities often know each other well and are prepared to invest time in their village.
The other guiding principle in delivering services in rural areas is making the best use of what is there and being flexible about using facilities for different purposes. The Post Office has an unrivalled network in rural areas and we shall consider how further diversification of Post Office Counters, which was never going to be privatised, can help to deliver more services to people in the countryside. Plans for the automation of the Post Office network offer exciting possibilities to improve the range of advice and information available to people no matter where they live.
Access to transport is one of the key requirements of people in rural areas. In many cases, it will be the car, which is an essential part of rural life today. Although car ownership in rural areas is high, some people do not have a car. It is a particular problem for women, young people and the elderly. We must look at people's need to travel, rather than focus on transport providers. In some areas, buses would have only one or two passengers. It would not be practical and it probably would not. be the best environmental option.
We must consider flexible approaches that build on what is already available. Many hon. Members will know about post buses. There are other opportunities, such as car sharing schemes and making better use of statutory transport, such as school and social services buses. The problems of providing services in rural areas are not intractable. We must start with an understanding of people's needs and then look at the best way in which to meet them—building, again, on what is already available in the countryside.
Overall, our countryside is a success story. Its beauty is an asset for the whole country. The countryside also contributes to the growing strength of the national economy. During the 1980s, employment in the countryside grew almost twice as fast as in large towns. Places with an attractive environment, broad-based employment and easy access to markets are well placed to help lead the recovery and contribute to our national competitiveness.
Some traditional rural job providers, such as mining, defence bases and agriculture, employ many fewer people than they used to—in our own countryside as in other parts of Europe. Many of the more accessible parts of the countryside have met that challenge. Old jobs are being replaced with new and employment is rising. The economy of today's countryside is very different from the traditional image. Small-scale manufacturing and the hotel and distribution sectors provide almost half the jobs in rural areas. Some 40 per cent. of farms in England now also run non-farming businesses. Those are huge and successful changes in the countryside. They are testament to the flexibility and the entrepreneurial skills of our people in the countryside.
The rural White Paper will look at how the Government can best play their part in helping the countryside fulfil its economic potential by building on its natural strengths—the skills and resourcefulness of the people and the quality of the environment. It will examine how the Government can help diversify rural economic activity, remove barriers to enterprise and build on local strengths. The new rural challenge competition, administered by the Rural Development Commission, is an example of our approach. The winning bids in the first round show an encouraging integration of economic and social development with environmental enhancement. I congratulate the Rural Development Commission, particularly its chairman, Lord Shuttleworth, on the immense amount of work that it does in the countryside.
I have received, as, I assume, have many of my hon. Friends, a note from the RDC. It is worth emphasising the second paragraph, which reads:
The Commission's overriding concern is that the Government should put people at the heart of rural policy and it should restate its belief in the importance for the conservation of the countryside of a strong rural economy and balanced communities with a reasonable access to services.
I could not have put it better myself.
The White Paper is still at an early stage, but I have tried to give the House an idea of the issues that it will address and look forward to hearing the view and ideas of hon. Members.
There are problems in the English countryside today and there are challenges for the future, but I am confident that we can meet them by building on the strengths of the countryside: the values of stewardship and inheritance, which we see in the way in which farmers and landowners


value their land; the respect for quality and building things to last, which we see from magnificent country churches to dry-stone walls; the sense of community in which people support one another and work together, whether to raise money for the church roof or to keep the cricket club going—even expanding; and the sense of place and pride in what makes one village different from the next. I am sure that, if we build on those traditional values and adapt them to meet new challenges, the English countryside can look forward to a bright and prosperous future.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome the debate—the first major debate on rural issues for many years—because at last it appears that the Government understand the importance of rural issues. It is right that it should be a major focus for all the political parties.
It is a pity that the debate is taking place on a Thursday evening, on a day when there is no opposed business at 10 o'clock, but it is good to see so many colleagues in the House, ready and willing to participate in the debate. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) here today, because I am sure that he will be able to tell us of all the good things that are happening in Lancashire. It is good to see so many distinguished Conservative Members, so many knights of the shires—I do not know whether Croydon, Central quite counts as a shire—so many knights-to-be and so many knights-who-should-be. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) is here.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is sexist to refer only to the knights of the shires.

Mr. Vaz: There is nothing like a dame, and I am sorry that I overlooked the presence of the honourable dame opposite.
The English countryside is a precious asset, which is neglected at the peril of the nation or any Government, especially this Government, as so many Ministers, including the Secretary of State, represent rural seats. It was interesting to hear of the trips that the Minister has made around the country, and a quick glance at his curriculum vitae shows why he is so keen on those visits. As a former sales executive with Rank Xerox, he has had plenty of opportunity to look at various parts of the country.
Living as I do in a shire city, every weekend I have the opportunity, when I return to Leicester—as I shall do this evening—to see the beautiful Leicestershire countryside. On the way, I pass some of the glories of England, among them the counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire. I agree with the Minister to this extent. It is a great joy. But like the rest of the rural areas of England, there have been dramatic changes over the past few decades.
Tonight, I hope to set out what I believe should be done to change rural issues from being considered as a fringe political subject to one that is brought into the mainstream of political debate. It is a move that the public support. It is an issue that the House must tackle.
The title of the debate, "The future of rural England", gives hon. Members enormous scope to raise so many issues of concern to them. I promise to be much briefer than the Minister was in his contribution, as so many hon. Members wish to participate.
After 15 years of neglect, some might say that the answer to the question "Is there a future for rural England?" is no. The view from the Opposition is an emphatic yes. Environmental policy, for far too long, has been based on action being taken after the damage has been done: cleaning our rivers after pollution; protecting sites after neglect; and protecting wildlife after their species has been threatened. Opposition Members believe in taking action to prevent damage to the environment from occurring in the first place. That is why we are committed to creating an environment protection executive, which will set and enforce standards, in co-operation with local authorities.
A thorough overhaul of the land register is necessary to provide a comprehensive guide to ownership, quality and land use. There is far too much confusion in that area. We need an improvement in conservation legislation, to protect natural habitats and create more nature and marine reserves. We strongly welcomed the creation of the new national parks. We believe that there should be more, especially in southern England, to meet the regional imbalance.
We need a new Clean Water Act, to provide clean water. The water environment naturally has an effect on the nation's tap water. We want to ensure full compliance with European standards, as set out in the European Union drinking water directives. It is outrageous that water disconnections for residential properties are still allowed. We believe that they should be outlawed. Water costs more in rural areas. Now the water companies are under pressure from the regulators to change the cost of delivery of water to each location. That is accountancy gone mad. The price of water, which has already increased, will quadruple.
It is high time that we developed policies for native and broad-leaved woodlands which recognise their amenity value and ecological importance. I want to see a huge reduction, if not elimination, in opencast mining, which has been described by the Council for the Protection of Rural England as one of the most environmentally destructive processes carried out in the United Kingdom. New opencast sites should be permitted only where they are of benefit to the local community and the environment.
The countryside belongs not to government, either local or national, but to the people themselves. There should be a legal right of access to common land, mountain, moor and heath. There should be co-operation with local authorities to ensure that public rights of way are kept open and clearly signposted.
We heard a great deal from the Minister about "Cider with Rosie". We did not hear enough about the cider-makers and the rural economy. For far too long, the hopes and aspirations of those who work in our rural areas have been taken for granted. One rural household in every five is now living in or near a state of poverty.
A survey carried out two years ago found that 55 per cent. of workers in farming, forestry and fishing were earning less than £200 a week compared with an average of 26 per cent. in all industries. With employment in agriculture falling, it is vital that new industries and businesses are fostered in the countryside.
Regeneration is not something that can be applied only to our major towns and cities. Macro-economic policy should not ignore the job-creating and wealth-creating potential that is based outside our urban areas. Businesses


in rural areas must have access to the help and advice that can be provided locally. We firmly support the concept of one-stop services for small businesses which will concentrate on providing management support systems and which will have their roots in the local community.
New technology will be the key to development in that area. Regional development agencies, with powers to provide industrial estates and encourage long-term investment will ensure that decisions about local needs are made by local people who understand the needs of rural areas.
Developments in telecommunication services will be a key to helping districts far from large towns and cities to stay in touch—for example, through telework. There are now 129 telecottages in the United Kingdom, 75 of which are in England and they boost the rural economy by encouraging town-based work to move to the country. It is important that that new technology should be available to rural areas at the same price as to other areas.

Mr. Mark Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is enunciating some interesting ideas which will form part of the Opposition's manifesto when the time comes. Can he give us a clue how some of the proposals will be funded?

Mr. Vaz: Nothing in what I have said will result in an increase in Government expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, and if was aware of what our policies are in terms of encouraging support for employment prospects, he would know that we believe firmly in the concept of partnership between the public and private sectors. I shall come on to planning and partnership issues later.
We welcome the initiative of ACRE—Action with Communities in Rural England—and the Rural Development Commission with help from British Telecom and the Post Office which last week launched a £1 million grant scheme known as countrywork to help with job creation in the English countryside. As Michael Simmonds wrote in The Guardian this week, this will hardly create a revolution, but it is a start. He said:
But it is so good to see the post office championing the cause of development when not so many weeks ago they were talking of rationalisation and closure.
We need to train our work force, especially the school leavers. There is a need to co-ordinate those agencies that offer training. Raising the low wages of those who work in our rural areas is also a priority. That is why the Opposition support so strongly the concept of the minimum wage. About 4 million people will benefit from the initiative, many of them in rural areas where a large number of people are on low pay. That will be of special relevance to women who make up a large proportion of the low-paid rural workers.
We did not hear much from the Minister about housing and I am not surprised. Britain is in the midst of an appalling housing crisis, with interest rates now on the rise again and a staggeringly high level of mortgage repossessions. At the same time, we are seeing the lowest rate of new houses built since the second world war and record levels of homelessness.
In the midst of that crisis is the crisis of rural housing. The scale of need in the village is greater.than in any single city, but because of their scattered nature, they are

often ignored. The concept is of an idyllic village—the little house on the prairie. The truth now is that the little house has become overcrowded. People on low incomes with young families are unable even to think of buying a home while fewer opportunities exist to rent.
We need an effective housing policy in order to sustain rural communities. Unless affordable housing is provided, the viability of some villages may be threatened. If people with younger families have to move out, school rolls will fall, causing the closure of schools and the redundancy of teachers.
The knock-on effect will be impossible to curtail. Other community facilities, such as shops and pubs, would then be threatened as businesses would slump accordingly. Thus, housing plays an integral part in the fortunes of the rural economy. There is an urgent need to act. Local councils in rural areas should be permitted to start small-scale building programme and offer a range of options for affordable housing, including part rent, part buy schemes, either in partnership with housing associations or by councils in their own right.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has already told my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) that none of his policies will involve additional expenditure. The Government this year are providing £2.5 billion to the Housing Corporation to provide some 45,000 housing starts this year in the low rental sector. How will the Labour party, as it says, solve the problem of homelessness, about which the hon. Gentleman complains, despite all that building, without the injection of further public funds?

Mr. Vaz: I have had the advantage of having a meeting recently with the chief executive of the Housing Corporation. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is unable to grasp the fact that there was no increase in the amount of money available to the Housing Corporation, there was a decrease, which will result in fewer houses being built. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman can understand that.
In the 1980s, the Minister's predecessors in the Department of the Environment boasted of a bonfire of planning controls. The consequence of the extraordinary approach that we have seen during the past 15 years is now apparent in all areas of rural Britain. We have witnessed extraordinary developments destroying some of the best of rural Britain while other areas are starved of necessary investment in new industry and housing. Sensible planning controls, firmly rooted in the local community, are vital if we are to have the right type of development at the right place in the right time.
Development must be plan led, not market led. The market on its own cannot provide affordable housing. We want to see local authorities using the planning system to ensure that new housing developments include some affordable housing for rent. I want to see a partnership approach so that local authorities work with the private sector and local people to protect and enhance our countryside and to secure balanced and appropriate development.
We want to see local people consulted much more carefully over the drawing up of local plans. That is why, on Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries etc.) Bill on 12 January, I announced


the establishment of a review of planning law. The results of that review will have a direct effect on the quality of lives of those who live in rural areas.

Sir Jim Spicer: rose—

Mr. Vaz: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time that I shall give way because other hon. Members wish to participate.

Sir Jim Spicer: All the emphasis so far on housing has been on what is done by the local authority. In my part of the world in west Dorset we would not even begin to understand the sort of situation that the hon. Gentleman outlines. The main thrust for new affordable housing in west Dorset comes from housing associations, which are getting cheap land, are using the money that is being provided by the Government to the full and are providing a massive input of new housing in every village in west Dorset.

Mr. Vaz: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening to what I have been saying, but I made it clear that we believe in a partnership between local authorities and the private sector. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman thinks the money that goes to the Housing Corporation comes from. It is public money, and what goes to the Housing Corporation goes to housing associations. We welcome the work that has been done in that regard. The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully to what is being said before intervening.
We believe in planning for prosperity—the prosperity of our local areas and local people, which will preserve the rich diversity of life in England. The House should be very concerned about the new information provided by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which shows that between 1945 and 1989 we lost more than 700,000 hectares of rural land to urban development. That is an area greater than Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire and greater London combined. The disappearance of the land—England's lost land—needs urgent consideration.
It is important for education opportunities to be available to all our children. That means that we must take special note of the requirements of rural communities. Local schools are often the focus of their communities, and there should be no prejudice against small village schools in decision-making. Resources must be made available to ensure that rural schools are closed only for educational reasons.
We need to improve access to further and adult education in rural areas. We must examine all options offered by new technology for distance learning and promoting the spread of information. That is why we propose that local agricultural colleges should be expanded into countryside colleges, with a wider curriculum providing key skills in new technologies, business techniques and environmental matters, thus meeting the training needs of a much broader section of the rural community.
The national health service was founded on the principle that the best health services should be available to all, wherever they lived and whatever their circumstances. In many rural areas, people do not have easy access to health services: mobility is of key importance to them. Mobile services can help to improve access to services in such areas: they could include mobile

clinics equipped to provide primary care—immunisation clinics, child health clinics and family planning services in local premises. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will need the support of such services.
Consultants and general practitioners must share responsibility for care so that people who need long-term treatment, such as diabetics, do not have to make so many long journeys to out-patient clinics. More tests and treatments should be available in GPs' surgeries and health centres so that patients do not have to go to hospital. We should also ensure that minimum activation and response times are as laid down in the Orcon standards, which require 95 per cent. of responses to be made within 19 minutes. Those standards should be maintained, and improved wherever possible.
I am sure that the House will agree that good transport is vital to the quality of life in rural areas. We look forward to hearing from the Minister what new measures she proposes to improve rural transport. Under the present Government, services have been cut dramatically: villages have become isolated and fares have soared. To end the isolation of those villages and to improve the prospects of small rural industries, we must have better road links between rural areas and centres of population. We must also have bypass schemes to make villages safer, taking traffic away from where people live and children play. That is why I support the eastern bypass in Leicestershire so strongly.

Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: As I taunted the hon. Gentleman earlier, I think that I ought to give way to him.

Mr. Garnier: The last thing that I would want to do is disappoint the hon. Gentleman. As he has cast a fly across the water—if he understands that analogy—I think that it would be rude of me not to rise to it.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the plan for the eastern bypass was drawn up by the Labour group on Leicester city council to wreck the countryside of south-east Leicestershire. Is it not true that the hon. Gentleman understands not a jot of the speech that he has been reading out, and that he has no experience of rural life and no understanding of rural Leicestershire, let alone rural England? Is not his speech a total abomination?

Mr. Vaz: That is rich, coming from the hon. Gentleman. He supports the A46/47 link road, which will destroy so much of the green space in my constituency and, eventually, his own. He ought to be ashamed of himself, and I am sure that the electors of Harborough have noted what he has said.
The car alone will not solve all the problems of transport in rural areas. There has been a massive increase in the Government's road building programme. The Department of Transport projects an increase in road traffic of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025, because of policies pushed through by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) when he was a Minister. That is enough to form a queue 124,000 miles long. Those extra vehicles could be accommodated on a new motorway from London to Edinburgh, if it were 257 lanes wide. Such a policy is environmentally damaging, both


because roads require land and because they encourage greater use of private vehicles, with all the attendant potential for an increase in air pollution.

Mr. Robert Key: rose—

Mr. Vaz: Good, affordable public transport is vital—

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman referred to me.

Mr. Vaz: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to apologise to the House—in his own time, not in mine—for what he did when he was a Transport Minister.
Good affordable public transport is vital, allowing the networking that enables rural communities to prosper. We need to encourage the use of innovative bus services such as post buses. We must provide greater route flexibility for the regular network services, ensuring—dare I say it—through ticketing between transport services. In the present climate, when the Government seekincredibly—to privatise our railway system, we need public and private partnerships to invest in our railways. We need to examine ways in which lines that are currently restricted to freight can be reopened to passenger service; we want to ease congestion on and damage to rural roads by promoting the use of rail for the movement of goods. The proper use of the railway system is one of the most effective ways of protecting the rural environment.
The organised hunting of foxes, deer, hares and other animals for pleasure, in which pain and suffering is inflicted, is unacceptable. The present law relating to cruelty to animals is seriously flawed, as statutes outlawing cruelty do not apply to wild animals. The law must be changed and strengthened. We have never proposed further limitations on country sports such as angling and shooting. We recognise that angling provides a healthy recreation for millions of people, and we should encourage angling associations and clubs to develop the sport through training schemes which will include the education of the young angler in the importance of caring for wildlife and the countryside generally. It is a wonderful occupation and recreational facility for ex-Ministers.

Sir Patrick Cormack: What about shooting?

Mr. Vaz: As for shooting, there is the issue of rural crime. It is not just the controllable crime seen through the eyes of those who watch the television series "Heartbeat"; it is real crime, and, as the Minister knows, there has been a staggering increase in it. In Kent there was an increase of 106 per cent. in recorded crime between 1987 and 1993. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack)—the new knight of the shires—will be astonished to learn that, during the same period, there was a 70 per cent. increase in recorded crime in Staffordshire. In Sussex the figure was 59 per cent., in Lancashire it was 43 per cent., in Hertfordshire

it was 33 per cent., in Leicestershire it was 96 per cent., in Dorset it was 35 per cent., in Hampshire it was 48 per cent., in Norfolk it was 55 per cent.—[interruption]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many seated interventions and commentaries. If hon. Members wish to comment, they must rise and seek to intervene in the customary fashion.

Mr. Vaz: Conservative Members do not want to hear about the increase in crime in rural areas. They are ashamed and embarrassed about it. There appears to be no strategy for dealing with the problem. There are no more bobbies on the beat, in their cars or even on their bicycles and crime is disfiguring the lives of people in our rural areas.
The debate will show that the needs of the countryside and those who live in it are of great importance. It is not a case of competition between town and country, of city hall versus village hall; the real competition is with time itself. We must ensure that we do not waste our most precious assets, so that all who care for the countryside can work together—as William Blake wrote—
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are anxious to contribute to this short debate so I ask hon. Members to exercise self-control and to make short speeches.

Mr. Robert Key: After the quite extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), I hope that we can return to the issue of the future of rural England. The hon. Gentleman was not kind enough to give way when he attacked me. I am sorry that he did not agree with my policy of cancelling five motorways, which I deemed to be unnecessary. I was keen on promoting bypasses, one of the most famous of which was at Broughton and Scruton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister, who is unable to mention it himself.
I declare an interest as president of the Wiltshire Association of Local Councils, and local councils have much to contribute to the future of rural England. Like the Minister, when I worked in the Department of the Environment I was able to travel the length and breadth of this country, which was a great privilege. One of my ambitions was achieved when I attended a parish council meeting in Warkworth castle in Northumberland and attended a meeting of the council of the Isles of Scilly.
I fervently hope that the future of rural England will not include regional government. The Labour and Liberal Democratic parties are wedded to the idea of devolution and regional government. In my book, that means more interference and bureaucracy and negates many existing checks and balances, such as the National Consumer Council and a number of regulators and the like. Above all, it means more Members of Parliament, more cost and more officials, and it raises the terrible issue of where regional assemblies might be located.
It may be seen as obvious that the north-east of England should have an assembly in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In the north-west, an assembly might be located in Manchester,


and in the midlands it could be somewhere in Birmingham. Those who have dealt with the councils in those fine cities, all of which are under Labour control, know that the Labour leadership of metropolitan authorities loathe the idea of regional government. It would emasculate the politics of their regions and reduce their influence for good, in their terms anyway, in their areas. They do not want it, and I know of no one who does.
In the south-west you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will decide that any regional assembly should have its headquarters in Bristol. Unfortunately, many people believe that Bristol is in the west of England. I hate to disillusion them, but it is not. Bristol is a proud and ancient city that has always looked rather in towards itself, but if it is anywhere, it is in the west midlands. It is absolutely not in the west of England, which is why I fought so hard when I had the honour of being a member of the Government to locate some of the new regional government offices in Plymouth, which is far closer to the centre of gravity of the south-west. The delivery of Government and local services is what matters, and Government regional offices have made a major contribution to that.
Thank goodness we are getting to the end of the review of local government because it has been a difficult time for us all. Much of the opinion-taking by the Local Government Commission has been flawed. I regret having to say that, but there is a perception that it has not worked. A constituent of mine wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment on 20 January. He stated:
There was a distinct lack of popular interest and even less comprehension of the true facts resulting in a natural reluctance to opt for change. A MORI interviewer indicated that of all the people seen in several different areas I was the first who could answer her questions without reference to the sparse green leaflet.
He went on to give further examples of the flaws as he saw them.
The Local Government Commission issued a number of press notices informing the local population of its decisions. I was rather alarmed about the Wiltshire decision because, in announcing a unitary authority for Swindon, for Thamesdown, which we all applaud and agree about, it announced that there would be no change to the rest of the county. Of course, that could not be further from the truth because, if a third of the population is taken from a county, the rest of the county must experience substantial change in the administration of local government.
My district council in Salisbury is excellent by all objective tests in financial management, administrative cost, tax collection and arrears and housing benefit: 98 per cent. of claims are dealt with within five days. On matters such as rent arrears, void council homes and energy ratio scores, my district council is doing very well. I know that we in south Wiltshire are fortunate in having one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the south-west. That is a privileged position but it has been achieved through hard work: it has not happened by accident.
I shall now deal with some of the particular issues affecting rural England, not just in my part of the world, but throughout the country, and I shall start with one or two points about the military. We in south Wiltshire are proud to have the largest training area in the country on Salisbury plain. The military have made a positive

contribution to the development of rural England and will continue to do so. They are a good neighbour and they look after the rural and built environment.
The military are good conservationists and plant so many trees that the nature conservation bodies complain that the habitat might be upset if planting goes on at the same rate. They are good at archaeology and at liaising with archaeologists and at the preservation of habitat for flora and fauna. If my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) were here, he would say that and I have no doubt that my other neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), will hope to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The military are good employers of civilians, and have been so in south Wiltshire for the best part of this century. They have made a dramatic impact on employment, so with particular sorrow I shall tomorrow attend the closure of RAF Chilmark, which is being closed because of the changing needs of the Royal Air Force.
Of course, the military bring housing problems in their wake, which was referred to earlier in the debate. Pressure arises when a family that has been in the Army for many years decides to leave it and needs housing. That family may originally have come from Liverpool or Manchester, but it has ended up in Salisbury via Germany, Belize or perhaps Hong Kong and its members feel more at home in my community than they do in their place of birth and upbringing.
There are great housing pressures on us all and good management by the housing authority has enabled it to cope very well. There has been a dramatic improvement, and the only measure that I shall offer is that in the past five years the number of letters and surgery cases about housing management has dropped dramatically. It is now manageable because there is a proper housing plan. Despite all the great financial difficulties that my housing authority faces, the housing stock is better than ever for the 15 per cent. of people in my constituency who depend on public housing.
There are also pressures on schools, social services, vehicles and roads and, of course, there is the pressure of noise. I pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence, which has done all that it possibly can to minimise noise disturbance. Firing ranges and RAF aeroplanes inevitably mean noise, but it is manageable and sophisticated computer models are operating on Salisbury plain to try to ensure that when meterological conditions are not right firing is stopped for a few hours.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: With his knowledge of that military training ground, perhaps my hon. Friend could tell my constituents, who are to receive the AS90 gun from Salisbury plain, that the charges to be fired in practice at Otterburn will not be the same as the rounds that caused the disturbance on Salisbury plain.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to confirm that. He is absolutely right. The AS90 is seen as something of a bogey. Of course it has the same barrel as the gun that has been firing on these ranges for 30 years but it is a high-tech version. What matters is the charge that is put in the gun, and the very high charge can be fired only on Salisbury plain. I think I can confirm that it will not be fired on the Otterburn ranges. At the same time, we want to share a little of the grief with Otterburn. I have known Otterburn all my life. I have cousins who farm at Otterburn, so I


understand the problems that my hon. Friend faces with his constituents. However, the position is not nearly as bad as he may imagine. Indeed, those living close to the plain sometimes wonder what is happening when it is quiet. Noise can be a problem, but the military take good care of the plain.
Another aspect is the science base of the MOD in rural areas. I have the good fortune to have in my constituency the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and the centre for applied microbiology and research at Porton Down. Both are fine establishments that have done much to further basic medical science, to provide remedies and to protect our service men in time of war or threat. The science base is not just a matter of what goes on behind wire fences; it is part of our community. Its families are part of our community, of our schools and of our social life. That enriches our community. We are proud to have so many distinguished scientists in our midst, and are grateful for the employment that the establishments bring.
One area that concerns me is policing. Contrary to what the Opposition claim, the police—certainly in Wiltshire—have made dramatic strides in reducing crime. It is good news that crime has fallen for the first time in my constituency for some years. That is due to the excellence of the Wiltshire constabulary, whose motto rightly is primus et optimus. It is the oldest police force in the country and, of course, it is the best.
The problem with the Home Office funding under the new formula is that it does not take proper account of the sparsity of rural areas. My hon. Friend the Minister has already discussed that matter with me and others and we shall continue to press him on it. The basis of the new budget for the new police authority is one issue, but sparsity is another.
There is another side to the matter. Rural areas often have far more than one police force; seven police forces operate within my constituency. Many people do not know that there are seven police forces. The Home Office force has primacy, but we also have a full constabulary of the Ministry of Defence police. I pay tribute to their work, which is often unsung. It is important to the villages on Salisbury plain to know that the military police are supporting the county constabulary.
From time to time, we have the Atomic Energy Authority police and the British Transport police on our roads. There are other forces such as the provost marshals and, now, Guard Force. I suspect that in future there will be more semi-official police organisations—such as that on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Dartford. Its security force personnel look very much like policemen, although they are not strictly and legally policemen. Despite that, we are grateful for the work of all policemen, whichever uniform they may wear.
Inevitably, after the increases in police numbers in recent years there will have to be some constraint. There are now more police in Wiltshire than ever. There has been a 23 per cent. increase in the number of uniformed policemen since 1979 and a 97 per cent. increase in the number of civilians working in support of the police. It is not widely known that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is a special constable. Parish constables have been a success.
We like special constables in our community—they are people we know and meet every day. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that it would be cheap, in his terms, to boost police forces in rural areas with sparse populations by using more special constables. I am sure that crime would reduce as a result.
Farming is absolutely basic to my constituency, as it is to most of rural England. Farmers have created our environment and preserved our countryside. They are quick to respond to changing needs and they deserve our congratulations. If anything has gone wrong, it is that 20 years ago no one would have air freighted calves to the continent, to be fattened and returned to our country as dead meat. All that added value should be going to our farmers, butchers and consumers, not to transport companies and French business interests.
I do not want to pursue that argument, but surely there will be some changes. I have suggested to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that we should be tweaking a very heavily subsidised industry to encourage more home markets. We must remove the need for that trade and encourage home subsidies.
For reasons that include the care of the environment, I am sure that we will move from a high-input, intensive farming regime to a more natural farming tradition. The system of environmentally sensitive areas is a major advance, which I welcome. Perhaps there will be a return to traditional farming in areas such as Wiltshire, which means the grazing of sheep and cattle on the plain—as at Parsonage down and Winterbourne Stoke—with dairying in the valleys. There may be less grain growing, which depends on a high input of nitrogen fertilisers. That could make a big difference to the pattern of agriculture. It may be a long way off, but it is definitely on the way. If we want a few clues, we could do worse than look at the example of New Zealand.
Land tenure changes will make a big difference to the future of rural England. I welcome the Government's plans and I look forward to the Bill being debated in the House. A serious review must be made of county council farm tenancies. In my county, there are many such farms, covering about 12,500 acres. The tenancy was designed to be a short-term stepping stone, but the average now runs for about 26 years; something is wrong there.
Forestry is gaining increasing attention as we manage to think long-term, but foresters need short-term cash flows to pay the wages. It is folly to tie them up in red tape and tie them down with planning restrictions, which is what I fear happens in some places.
I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to an area that he has taken great care with, for which we are grateful—the New Forest heritage area. There are still problems with the overlapping of local plans and there is a fear that commoners, farmers and landowners will find themselves so tied up in red tape that they cannot do any productive farming.
Mineral extraction and waste management are matters that other hon. Members may wish to pursue, but planning is the key to so many things—as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his speech. Should there be a free-for-all? He was right to suggest that the instinct is to say yes, people should be able to use the property they own to their own advantage, in their own way. However, pragmatism insists that we provide an active framework of community


co-operation. Therefore, I have no quarrel with the concept of being locked into a tight planning system. Local plans have proved a great advance.
This is a small island, which is another reason why we do not need regional government. The transport needs of London and Manchester cannot be seen in isolation from their impact on the home counties, the east Thames corridor, Cheshire or, for that matter, Barrow-in-Furness. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was right in his aim of deterring green field development even further. However, we must be careful not to deter regeneration in existing communities. As a former Minister with responsibility for inner cities, I know what it is to talk in billions of pounds about the regeneration of urban environments.
It is wonderful to see Hulme crescent in Manchester coming down and Housing Association modest housing being put up in its stead. However, I am not talking about that; I am drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in most market towns there are hundreds of acres of derelict land. Much of it may be railway land; much of it has simply been derelict for many years. Enormous problems need to be dealt with.
We need to deal with transport constructively. I do not wish to get sidetracked into issues of inter-urban travel. In preparing his White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Minister should consider the problems of rural poverty, which undoubtedly exist, low incomes for rural workers, however diversified industries become in rural areas, and the retired population, who will always be on tight budgets. They are all dependent on the motor car. My worry is that less well-off constituents in rural England will suffer most from a carbon tax and similar proposals. I cannot imagine how one can devise a subsidy system to get round the problem.
This country spends more than £1 billion a year on subsidising not people who want to travel but bus companies. Is that the right way forward? My right hon. Friend the Minister drew attention to the fact that we need to be much more imaginative in tackling the issues of rural travel. Of course, the rural transport development fund, which he mentioned in connection with post buses, is important, but sick and disabled people have transport problems in rural areas, which is understandable. The concessionary fare scheme may partly deal with that, but it does not deal with the needs of most people.
I am increasingly concluding that the best way of ensuring better targeted transport subsidy in rural areas is to subsidise not bus companies but people who need transport, which could be done through voucher systems. Many local authorities already operate such systems. To some extent, they are linked with voluntary car schemes. An extremely important study has been undertaken in Wiltshire by the Health and Safety Commission. It was published only this month and I draw it to my hon. Friend's attention.
Airports are another issue from which we cannot escape in discussing rural England. Regional airports are becoming increasingly important and they have an impact on rural development. There are many examples of that around the country. If ever there was one example of an airport that was a major opportunity waiting to happen, it is Newquay airport in Cornwall. That could make an enormous difference to the economy of western England. World tourism will continue to expand. Newquay can take

jumbo jets and Concorde. The matter should be considered carefully. Could Cornwall cope? I believe that it could.
The Rural Development Commission has been mentioned. I reiterate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister. I congratulate Lord Shuttleworth and all the people who work for the commission. I hope that it will reach the right conclusions in its difficult and controversial decisions on market failure and direct rural training. It has saved thatching and wheelwrighting from extinction. Some of the trades that it has taught have moved entirely into the private sector.
I support the withdrawal of taxpayers' support where it is unnecessary, but we must be sure that we do not just abandon some of those traditional rural crafts where there is no alternative. Distance learning, telecottaging and small-scale tourism are taking place and the Rural Development Commission has played its part.
We have employment problems in, for example, Wilton, where, tragically, the carpet factory closed this week. Of course, Wilton carpets will continue in one form or another. The name may have been raided by Bradford, but the land, buildings and heritage remain.
Conservative Members and the Government are so often accused in rural areas of destroying rural communities. There is the image of school, church, pub, post office and shop. In one breath, we are condemned by Opposition parties for putting strains on those institutions. As soon as those parties get into a position of power and influence to do anything about the problems, they do the closing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has his own example; I have mine. My county council, where a pact has been formed between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, is putting under threat schools at Barford, St. Martin, Fovant and Dinton in my constituency. It is not being done on educational grounds. The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that those schools should close only on educational grounds. I hope that he will tell his county councillors of the decision that he has made.

Mr. Garnier: If he will not, I will.

Mr. Key: If our rural communities were being offered wonderful rural centres, with schools, sports halls, village halls for live culture and telecottaging, that would be fine and many of our little rural schools would say, "That is a better education," but that is not happening. Little rural schools are being closed so that we can have bigger town schools. That is not what my constituents want.
Tourism is crucial and will be more important than ever as the years go by. I remain worried about the structure of tourism and support for it. My message is that we should make tourism as local as possible in terms of the organisation of the tourist industry. In my time as a Minister with responsibility for tourism, I found that it was best for a town to take an initiative on tourism rather than rely on a regional tourist board or even a bigger tourist organisation.
England is a land of great diversity with a bright future and we should never talk it down; to do so costs jobs and prosperity. When I lived in Cornwall in the 1960s, I was told that Cornish fishing, the daffodils on the Isles of Scilly, early potatoes and broccoli, railways and the Cornish way of life were in terminal decline. None of that


was true. There was uncomfortable change in the area. If one group of people should shoulder some responsibility for that, it is those who made their way in the world by convincing people that the south-west was in terminal decline.
The Liberal party, which became the Social Democrat party, which became the Liberal Democratic party, made the politics of the south-west the politics of decline, protest and defeat. That was not clever because every Liberal Democrat vote in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Dorset, Avon, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire is a vote for surrender. That party tells boardroom decision-makers from Newquay to New York, from Truro to Tokyo, and from Salisbury to San Francisco that the people of the south-west cannot cope, that they opted out of the challenge for progress and quality of life.
Every Liberal Democrat vote says to Whitehall and to Brussels, "We beg for your money and we will do what we are told. We want federalism, the single currency, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy." At the vote on fishing last week, which was so cynical and opportunistic, the leader of that party was not even present.
The south-west can make a great deal of difference to itself: it has a choice. It should not sulk or sink into that orange sunset and be represented at Westminster by a party that is proud to be out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom and that lacks influence.
In rural England, we see today's enterprise culture gaining markedly from the rich resources of the south-west. The heritage is better cared for than ever. I hope very much that in 1995 my constituency, where a quarter of jobs are in manufacturing industry, will be an example to the rest of the south. If my constituency is anything to go by, and I think it is, rural England has never had such a broad economic base. It is poised to take full advantage of the economic upturn. We have many problems to tackle, but we have never been better equipped to tackle them.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I join in the all-party welcome both for the debate and for the Government's announcement that they will publish a White Paper on rural policy. Although I have no doubt that there will be plenty of disagreement about rural policy, it is good news for all hon. Members representing rural areas that the real problems and challenges affecting the communities are coming under scrutiny in that way. I welcome the tone and most of the content of what the Minister said at the start of the debate. Whether he will deliver on that remains to be seen. Regrettably, I noted some omissions from his comments. He sought, however, to highlight some relevant and important issues.
To draw up the kind of integrated approach that has been suggested, across all policies and involving all sections of the relevant communities, is an ambitious target. Despite the best intentions, the policies from different Departments, quangos and various tiers of Government too often pull in conflicting directions. The answer is to start with the basics.
Let us think of a typical rural community—a small village or town surrounded by a few dispersed homes and farms. Traditionally, such communities were virtually

self-sufficient. The starting point was usually farming or a similar primary industry such as fishing, which brought relatively high employment levels to the countryside. Nearby villages and small towns grew up to service their needs—markets, small shops and other services, a school, post office, church and chapel. The size of the community and the traditional methods employed in its business meant little risk to the environment and an essentially self-sustaining economy. However, I am not suggesting that everything was perfect. In many ways, opportunities were restricted, but it was in a very literal sense a sustainable economy and community.
However, all that has been under huge pressure in the past few decades and the net impact has left a huge question mark over the future of such rural communities.
In Cornwall, we are only too well aware that the urban view of the countryside—holidays, a good environment and a nice place to live—is very far from the reality for many of the people born and brought up there. To explain that we have to consider what is needed to keep rural communities alive.
First, housing must be available at a price that people can afford. However, several different pressures are making it ever harder for local people to find the housing that they need. The countryside has become a popular place to find a home for retirement, from which to commute or in which to buy a holiday or weekend cottage. City salaries or the value of a London house on retirement are available to such purchasers, but local wage rates cannot match them. With the supply of housing limited, not least by efforts to protect the countryside from over-development, local people are priced out of the market.
In Cornwall, for example, this has meant that a two-earner couple, with both individuals on average local earnings, could by the late 1980s secure a mortgage sufficient to buy only a house in the cheapest 2 per cent. of the housing stock in the county, almost none of it by definition in the more rural villages which were the most popular and, therefore, the most expensive.

Mr. Colvin: These days, people do not have to buy a house. In my constituency, there are on average 1,000 empty dwellings, roughly equivalent to the number of people on the urgent council house waiting list. If the Government's leasehold and short tenancy reforms were more widely known, more of that property could be let. People do not have to buy.

Mr. Taylor: I cannot dispute what is happening in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but that is certainly not the case in Cornwall, although I acknowledge that there are particularly acute pressures in Cornwall for the reasons that I have elaborated.
In the 1980s, more than half the sales in the most popular Cornish villages involved second homes and many of the rest were homes for retirement. That stops local people buying in their own communities, and I shall deal in a moment with the problems of rented accommodation.
If a young couple cannot find a home in their community, they have to leave. The village then empties of children, the school struggles and local businesses fail. When the summer holidays come, part-time residents wonder why the full-time services have disappeared—even though they are a major cause of that disappearance.
The problem is made worse by the loss of rented accommodation. Most rural communities have never had a great deal of private sector or council accommodation, but council house sales have been brisk and private landlords found that they could make more out of a summer holiday let than a year-round tenancy. The result is that homelessness has hit rural areas hard and forced young people out of their communities. We are all familiar with people who can get a winter let, but, when summer comes, are once again peripatetic, homeless, perhaps staying with family or friends or relying on bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Of course, well-paid local jobs could provide a solution to the dilemma. Traditional industries such as farming, fishing and mineral extraction employ nothing like the numbers that they once did, and they offer low incomes. In addition, out-of-town shopping and the concentration on larger towns by the major retail companies has destroyed much of the traditional small business base in villages. Once-thriving village centres now feel lucky if they can boast a part-time community post office.
For those with a car, that may be sad but not necessarily a real problem. However, for those without easy access to transport, it is a nightmare. On top of high housing costs, it makes rural living ever more unaffordable and, as young people, mothers and others are forced into the towns, more services are lost to the villages. Fewer children means pressure for the school to close, fewer people using local shops leads to still fewer shops; and so the cycle ratchets on. Fewer people use the buses, so routes are lost and the remaining people are stranded.
There is also the threat of the loss of rural post offices. Many have already closed and others are reduced to opening part time, but vast numbers are still struggling to survive although they have been hit by high business rates, by ever lower payment per item of business and by the Government's refusal to allow the Post Office to offer the new, competitive services that could help it survive while it remains in the public sector. If it is true that such an initiative is to be ruled out, it will be seen as nothing other than petty retaliation in a fit of pique by the President of the Board of Trade because he was not allowed the privatisation that he wanted. If the local post office is strangled in village after village, another strand of the mutual community and the elements of support that allow people to live in that community even though they are not rich is cut.
I hope that the House will now permit me to raise a couple of issues specific to the south-west which relate to Government decisions. The biggest fear in Cornwall, and what has most angered people in the region, is the cost of water. Capital costs used to be spread across the country but now fall to local communities. That may sound fine in theory, but the result is that the 3 per cent. of the national population living in the south-west has had to pay for more than one third of the national cost of cleaning Britain's beaches. With many bills soaring to more than £600—that is often the case for pensioners in my constituency—householders and, incidentally, local businesses, have been badly hurt. I fear that the same could happen with the decision to charge consumers for the costs of getting electricity and gas to us.
I have done enough to highlight the problems of rural areas which have been caused partly by structural and economic change and too often hastened by Government policy. I deal now with what we must do to turn this

around, and the kind of integrated policies that we need at all levels to rebuild the thriving, sustainable rural economy that Ministers say they are seeking. The Liberal Democrats published their proposals last year in the document entitled "Reclaiming the Countryside" and have already submitted it to the Government for consultation.
I must draw some conclusions from what I have said. The rural community cannot survive if all sections of that community cannot afford to live there. We cannot allow rural areas to become commuter dormitories or holiday home ghost towns, and that means affordable homes to buy and rent and helping young first-time buyers, for example, through a part-ownership scheme. Yet the private sector will not finance housing schemes with restricted sale clauses to meet local needs and, as housing associations have been required to get private sector finance, it is becoming a real problem to guarantee that the land specially set aside for rural needs will remain for local needs thereafter and councils are then naturally reluctant to make land available which would otherwise not get planning permission.
Many rural housing associations have suffered huge cuts for next year. For example, Cornwall Rural Housing Association will be unable to build any homes. The solution must be to relax the restrictions on the use of receipts from council house sales to build new homes to rent, whether by the council, housing associations or any other bodies, but present policies cannot continue without wrecking the nature of many of the rural communities that I represent.
I cannot speak for all areas of the country, but where there is high incomer pressure and pressure for second homes, one cannot service the need for local housing for local people without substantial Government investment beyond that which remains after the recent cuts.
Housing alone is not enough—with it must come jobs. The best way in which to tackle that desire is to give more muscle to backing local business. That means single, well-financed local development agencies. The highlands and islands and Wales have shown that they can work and it need not mean much more money. It means taking the funds already held by civil servants in Whitehall and the Government's regional offices, all of which, incidentally, are in big cities, taking money from the quangos and from the plethora of competing agencies and giving it to a single accountable local agency to back local business.
Much as I appreciate the efforts of those involved with, for example, Business Link, I simply do not believe that an office in or on the edge of some rural town, for which people have to pay, meets the need, with part-time attendance by people from various Government agencies.
Creating jobs also means taking a broader approach to development issues and planning and transport. It is nonsense that no assessment is made of the often negative economic impact of road schemes on local communities. We need to look at the transport needs of rural communities in a broader way to take into account the environment, the effect on local businesses and those who may have no access to private transport.
Much of the destruction of the countryside has been in the name of economic development, yet has contributed to the loss of economic and business success in the communities affected. It is extraordinary to find it confirmed in parliamentary questions that no assessment is made of the local impact of such road schemes on jobs, even though the Government have, over many years,


claimed that the schemes have contributed to the creation of jobs overall. They may contribute to jobs in the cities because the cities can supply the rural areas more easily, but, too often, such schemes destroy jobs in rural areas for small local businesses that never have any intention or ability to go into the cities to compete in that direction.
Creating jobs also means adopting a new approach to agriculture and protecting countryside. That is why we have advocated replacing the common agricultural policy with a new European common rural policy, in which agriculture continues to play a core role, but not an exclusive role. More advice and assistance needs to be made available for the start-up and expansion of small businesses, marketing and business planning, and diversification out of food production.
We need to move away from indirect price management in agriculture, which is not popular with the wider public and never will be. Therefore, it is always under threat from Governments responding to that public concern. We need to move towards direct payments for economic, environmental and social goods, which benefit the wider community, such as maintenance of the best features of the British countryside, biodiversity and areas of special interest.
It has been said several times in this debate that farmers have created the countryside. People value that countryside and we need to make people more aware that they cannot have it without a successful farming community. One of the ways in which to do that is to make people more aware that their support in pay goes into things that they want to keep, rather than a general impression that it goes into the pockets of people who buy and drive new Range Rovers.
Local government is best placed to respond to many of those local needs, but it simply cannot if restrictions, which were originally designed to tackle the sins of a few over-spending, out-of-control, left-wing city authorities, are extended to hit traditionally low-spending authorities in rural areas. It is especially harsh when authorities which for many years—decades rather than a few years—were low spenders, conserved spending as the Government wished, and very often underspent in areas such as education, find themselves, because the capping ceilings are based on historic levels, having to cut many more core services than authorities in the cities which were large spenders in the past and which have more fat to trim. It is not always the case, but some hon. Members would agree that very often that is what happens.
Extending the restrictions is especially hard to accept when the cost of services in rural areas, which cannot be delivered through one unit but have to be spread out over a wide area, are inadequately recognised by Whitehall. I shall give a couple of examples from the south-west.
In the south-west as a whole, the Government allow us £130 a year less in the standard spending assessment for each child's education than the average for England. Yet our schools have to deliver the same national curriculum and pay the same national wage rates. In addition, there is a tendency to employ older, more loyal staff in smaller village schools, so their wage costs are usually higher than average. Schools which may have only four, five or six teachers in the first place sometimes have to make a borderline decision about being able to afford to employ another teacher.
Secondly, the area cost adjustment transfers funding to London and the south-east. For 1995–96, the effect on the south-west is a £1.5 billion loss of funding, despite the high costs affecting us in the ways that I have already outlined. Ministers have already agreed that that transfer needs to be examined, but I regret that they are not doing it more speedily. Throughout the south-west, while there may be a debate about the detail, there is broad agreement that there is a problem for us with the working of the settlements.
Those problems are typical of rural areas, whose support the Conservatives have taken for granted for too long. If nothing else, the growing political success of the Liberal Democrats has helped at least to turn the political spotlight on the needs of rural communities. I have always argued that a marginal seat is best for the constituents in it. Politicians will always work harder and Governments will always seek to win or defend them as a result. The fact that the south-west has become an area of many marginal seats and a tight political battle has led to a change of attitude.
It is time that the documents on the lack of economic development funds, sitting currently on the Prime Minister's desk, the rhetoric about cutting water bills, and the rhetoric about greater investment in our needs and responding to the concerns that I have mentioned was turned into action. If the White Paper is to lead to real change, it will have to lead to a change of policies in areas to which the Government have wedded themselves ideologically. But embrace that change they must.

Mr. Iain Mills: I shall be brief because it is a great shame and very selfish of ministerial colleagues, Opposition spokesmen and other hon. Members to take so long on their speeches late on a Thursday night when so many of us wish to speak in this important debate on rural England. I condemn hon. Members from all parties for taking far too long and I shall make an example with my speech by making it short and cutting it down to specific questions. I hope that the House finds some ways in which to prevent such use of its time, especially late on a Thursday night.
I have a different problem with my rural economy. I have the only county seat in the west midlands—Meriden; the bit between Birmingham and Coventry, which includes all the farms and all the countryside. It is doing too well. It is encouraging too much economic activity. With the M6 and the M42, the national exhibition centre, Birmingham international airport, Birmingham international station and Birmingham international business park, there is far too much concentration on the use of the green belt.
We also have the problem that the people with those jobs, which is great for the economy and great for the west midlands, need homes. We now have an extra 3,300 homes in the green belt. My first question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), is this: will she accept my strong concern about the unitary development plan and the extra houses required in the green belt? In my small constituency, that involves more than 3,000 houses. Will she comment on that? Is that really right in terms of the arrangements for the countryside?
Secondly, has my hon. Friend the Minister heard about the proposal, because of the magnet of the roads and all the rest of it, by Aston Villa and Birmingham City football clubs to build a new football stadium? That proposal could cause immense problems on the roads.
Thirdly, has my hon. Friend the Minister heard about, and what does she feel about, the widening of the M42 in the area by a further two lanes on each side which will lead to a super super-highway? What does she feel about that and its effects on local residents?
I have given my hon. Friend the Minister's office advance warning of my next question. All the developments to which I have referred pose questions for the rural countryside dweller who moved to the rural countryside in the belief that he would enjoy it. As I understand it, a judgment was made recently on appeal in the House of Lords that compensation can be paid to someone who can demonstrate that a property has lost value as a result of public works.
If the unitary development plan or a ministerial judgment gives rise to a planning permission in respect of which a rural dweller can prove loss of value in respect of his dwelling—whether due to a motorway, to airport expansion or to the construction of new houses close to the urban dweller's house—what does my hon. Friend believe will happen as a result of that judgment? My hon. Friend may have to reply to that later. I am not sure whether I am correct, but I believe that the judgment related to Colonel Owen.
I promised to be brief and I will be brief. I represent a rural constituency, but it will not remain a rural constituency unless we have concentrated and effective help from the Government and from all those concerned in preventing further development.

9 pm

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I noted what you said about brief speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of my hon. Friends asked me to use their 10 minutes, but I shall refrain from doing so. However, I shall not speak for as long as the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
When discussing this topic, it is very hard not to produce a shopping list of problems in rural areas. My constituents would expect me to do that and they would probably like to write such a list for me. My constituency is typical of scores of constituencies. It comprises a huge rural area between Merseyside and the River Ribble with a substantial new town, Skelmersdale, in one corner and two smaller towns, Ormskirk and Burscough, in the middle.
My constituency has eight rural parishes and four semi-rural parishes. It has the usual tensions between the contiguous rural and urban areas. While the townspeople envy what they see as the wealth of the rural parishes and strive to move into them, people in the rural areas envy the facilities in the urban areas. The solutions to reconciling those tensions lie in increasing ease of communication and the decentralisation of many public services. That has not proved easy in recent years. While the councils have done a great deal to decentralise some services into rural areas, recent swingeing cuts in local government finance have made progress very difficult.
For example, Lancashire county council's plans to extend nursery school and library provision, which have produced two excellent libraries in rural parishes and one

nursery class in an area outside the towns of west Lancashire, have been put into reverse by the huge cuts in standard spending assessments that Lancashire has suffered since 1992.
Ease of communication effectively means the private car for rural west Lancashire. Three vital bypasses projected for the district have been considered again recently, partly by the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in his previous job. The most crucial bypass has been completely cut out; one has been put on the shelf and the remainder seems to be permanently stalled.
The two rural railway lines are under constant threat. British Rail's inability to alter platforms or to prevent the decrease in the frequency of trains has left many people in rural areas, particularly the elderly, isolated. That situation has been made worse by the virtual collapse of rural bus services since deregulation. That issue has already been discussed and I shall not repeat it.
I often hear hon. Members attacking tax rises on petrol on the ground that rural people need cars. That may be true, but the complaint does not cover many elderly people who do not drive. Nor does it cover, crucially I believe, young people for whom rural life becomes an irritating and limiting experience so that they cannot wait to leave.
My constituency probably has the greatest total mileage of moss roads of any constituency in England. Those roads are built on peat moss. A combination of drought years—we are not experiencing such conditions now, but we have in the past—and increasing vehicle size, especially farm vehicles, is destroying those roads. The county has come up with imaginative solutions involving patch, make-do and mend solutions. It has made yearly bids for transport supplementary grant, but it has not been able to secure any. Therefore, some of those roads must be closed, which will divert more traffic on to fewer roads and increase maintenance problems.
In my constituency, like many others, there is increasing pressure on rural schools. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says, the county has supported the tiny rural schools in my area. One now has 20 pupils. Figures—they are public—show that, per pupil, a small rural school can cost four times as much as an urban school, and there is great pressure from other areas to do something about that. Again, the shortfall in revenue support grant, particularly for education, makes it more likely that such schools will remain under threat.
If the argument for the retention of rural schools is based at least partly on their essential nature in the community—I support that, of course—and if small local communities are to flourish, perhaps we should consider other methods of top-up funding, possibly from the Department of the Environment, to relieve pressure on the education budgets of certain areas. Perhaps parish council precepts will even be considered.
There is increasing unease in the farming community of west Lancashire, which is brought about by pressure to sell county smallholdings, and uncertainty about medium-term and long-term effects of the abolition of minimum-term tenancies. The Prime Minister was wrong to suggest a few weeks ago in Parliament that all members of the National Farmers Union favoured the abolition of minimum-term tenancies. In the north-west, they certainly do not. The majority of tenant farmers, even though the decision will not be retrospective, are dead against it. Both


developments, they believe, could stifle new entrants into farming and horticulture, and, far from encouraging them, might point young people away from careers in agriculture.
Shops, post offices and housing have been adequately discussed, but the planning policy guidance to which the Minister referred still continues to use the wonderful phrase "limited affordable housing". When many of my constituents in rural areas see the word "affordable", they fall about laughing. What is affordable in the opinion of someone in Whitehall is different from what people in west Lancashire and others in the north can achieve by putting their hands in their pockets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) tempted me to refer to matters such as the police service. Hon. Members might know—the Minister certainly does—that it was announced that Lancashire's police budget was to be cut by £280,000. A letter was received a few days later, saying, "We are terribly sorry, but we got the decimal point in the wrong place," and the budget was to be cut by £2.8 million. That is the equivalent of 100 policemen. It is likely that we shall see a reduction in police numbers in rural areas, whereas in west Lancashire there has been the opposite tendency in the past.
I wish to spend a few minutes dealing with green belts. I intended to ask the Minister, "Where is the new PPG2?" Of course, it was published on Tuesday. That spoilt my best line. However, I am pleased to read revised PPG2, particularly paragraph 3.2, which states:
It is for the applicant for planning permission to show why permission should be granted for development which is inappropriate within the Green Belt.
I am pleased also to note the stiffening of controls on building adaptation. The regulations have been substantially clarified, and my local authority will certainly be grateful for that.
I am sure that green belt policy commands support across the House and with the large majority of the population. But for local planning authorities, balancing the need to defend the green belt against the needs of the rural economy is like dancing on ice. The huge changes in rural employment, and hence in the make-up of the rural population, since 1955 when the green belt got going, have created stresses and pressures that planners find hard to resist and even harder to accommodate. It is something of an indulgence, but I must pay tribute to Les Abernethy, the chief planning officer in west Lancashire, and to Councillor Bob Pendleton, the chairman of the planning committee, who have both retained a clear, flexible and forward-looking attitude throughout all the difficulties.
In PPG7, published in 1992, the Government said that the retention of
as much land as possible in agricultural use no longer has the same priority. The priority now is to promote diversification of the rural economy so as to provide wide and varied opportunities for rural people, including those formerly employed in agricultural and related sectors".
That passage, coupled with the drive to reduce agricultural surpluses, has led to substantial pressures to diversify in rural areas, which naturally push at the limitations in the green belt. Most of the diversification involves new or

altered structures, and those involving leisure and sporting activities can be extraordinarily ugly. The pressures continue to increase.
In my constituency, one of the most important industries is horticulture, which presents the familiar problems involving acres of derelict glasshouses, and land clearance. In horticulture, the influence of the main retailers—the large supermarkets—has been significant. They require produce to be packed under set conditions and delivered direct within a specified period, and the costs of meeting their requirements, as well as the introduction of tougher hygiene regulations over the years, have been prohibitive for smaller agricultural holdings. That has resulted in the rise of specialists providing facilities to wash, pack and distribute not only their own produce but that of other holdings.
Now, however, it seems that diversification is going back the other way. For example, because of demands to decrease the amount of handling of tomatoes, the tendency is to move back to the holding where the tomatoes are grown, and to do the handling and packing there, which will increase demand for buildings and new structures in more areas.
Similarly, it was common practice for most holdings to own vehicles for use in the distribution of their produce. Use of such vehicles was ancillary to the operation of the holdings, and therefore did not require planning permission. The move towards greater efficiency has led to an increase in the numbers of haulage contractors who primarily transport agricultural produce but may not themselves own land.
The number of farm holdings that use their vehicles to transport not only produce grown on their land but that grown on other holdings is increasing. That leads to enormous rows about planning permission, about which I have had endless nightmares over the past couple of years. There is a clear and obvious need for small industrial estates to accommodate hauliers and others close to the main roads, but also close to the farms that they serve.
That is difficult to achieve even under the revised green belt regulations, if I understand them rightly. Moreover, confusions in the wording of the original PPG2 and the resulting court cases, especially concerning alternative uses for agricultural buildings, have soured relationships and in some cases set for local farmers and landowners what they take to be precedents. The precedents are still there for local planning authorities to tackle, even now that the revised PPG2 has been published.
The more careful wording in the new version will help planners, but will hardly prevent the rows stemming from those precedents. Regulations concerning agricultural building for housing for essential workers have been mightily abused in the green belt. I could take hon. Members to see great mansions. No doubt the Minister will be seeing some of those—or at least, whoever defeats him in South Ribble will see them—because his constituency will inherit large sections of the territory that I am describing. I could take the Minister to mansions resembling Southfork, which technically are agricultural dwellings.
It is appalling, and the new annexe D in PPG2 is welcome, as is the inclusion of hospitals in paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9. That would solve many wrangles, such as at Greaves Hall, where we are dealing not only with the


hospital but with the local authority and the health authority, which is not even in Lancashire. The new annexe on white land is also welcome.
I have some questions for the Minister, which I shall rattle through. This is a little unfair, as I have not given her notice of my questions, but I would welcome an answer at any time. What is the precise meaning of the phrase in paragraph 1.7 of the new PPG2 which states that the purposes of including land in green belt are of paramount importance to their continued protection and should take precedence over land use objectives? Frankly, I cannot explain that.
Will the Minister also look at the extra difficulties caused by the sections of document that deal with the height of buildings and their visual impact? In an excessively flat area, such as the area that I represent, those buildings can cause enormous problems. One can sometimes see a house with a new roof from four or five miles away, and planners and inspectors have often said that someone cannot have a development in an area because it can be seen from five miles away.
On the question of sports facilities, the document says that possible examples of facilities include small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor sport, or small stables for outdoor sport and recreation. I can see what it is getting at, but most sports facilities require to be underpinned by a clubhouse or bar. There is tremendous pressure not just to develop a sports facility in a rural area, but to build a bar or a similar facility as well.
What does the Minister think the new policies—either those in the White Paper or those in the green belt document that I have been talking about—will do about farm fragmentation, which presents us with a terrible problem? The pressure to break up a farm is followed by the pressure to put a new building on each of the fragments of that farm.
It is possible to detect in the slow changes evidenced in planning policy guidelines, Department of the Environment circulars and subjects connected with the White Paper the evolution of an integrated approach to green belt policy, which will be enhanced by sensible district, strategic and structural plans, and by imaginative proactive policies that are emerging in some areas.
I read an imaginative document published by Halton borough council in Cheshire, which the Minister might like to look at. The document suggested—among other things—that rundown rural railway stations might be revitalised by planning proposals that allowed the reasonable development of affordable housing in the area of railway stations, in return for developer input into modernising the stations. That could include—crucially, in my area—raising platforms to allow people to get on to trains.
There will always be a problem in finding flexibility to allow the development of small businesses in the green belt. At some point, the problems of regulating farm shops must be sorted out, as must the problems of allowing non-agricultural businesses to occupy agricultural buildings. In the northern half of my constituency, the local economy depends to an enormous extent on such small enterprises.
The farmers and landowners of west Lancashire retain the sympathy and support of the rest of the population because the people in general like the countryside that has

been constructed—to an enormous extent—by farming practices during the centuries. The people of the area enjoy their access to the countryside for leisure activities, but they also enjoy their footpath access. Many farmers accommodate such access easily and with total co-operation. The other day, a farmer complained to me about the amount of time that he wasted talking to the nice people who walk along the path close to his land. Many other farmers are more hostile and sometimes actively obstruct footpaths.
The Minister was right to say that the countryside is a working and a living area and not merely a "chocolate box picture" for visitors to enjoy. I recall with pleasure the former Minister responsible for food saying that one should not set the countryside in aspic. One of my hon. Friends retorted, "If it was, you'd bloody well eat it."
While we recognise that the countryside is a working and a living area, we must also acknowledge that there is poverty and isolation—I was pleased that Conservative Members also acknowledged that. Most rural areas suffer from homelessness, overcrowded homes and a drastic shortage of some services. If those issues are dealt with seriously in the White Paper, it may well gather widespread support—including support from Opposition Members—but if it does not, it will descend into platitudes and irrelevance, which will not help the future of rural England.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I shall follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and be brief, as some of my hon. Friends still want to speak.
When we listened to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) outline Labour's plans, we had a fascinating insight into what the Opposition would do for the countryside. He spoke for approximately half an hour—indeed, for more than half an hour—but he did not say one word about farming. How can the Labour party construct a rural policy without mentioning farming once, when they know that it is the bedrock of our rural life?
The hon. Member for Leicester, East listed a heap of new regulations. He seems to want a new Domesday book, a tougher environment protection agency, more national parks bringing more regulation, a policy for woodlands and a legal right of access to roam on common land, moorland, mountains, woodlands and heaths, which would destroy many country jobs, especially those that depend on grouse shooting, and affect the status of many wild birds for which privacy and quiet are essential.
To cap it all, in between talking about telecottages—I thought that I knew what a cottager was, but I am not entirely sure what they are—the hon. Member for Leicester, East proposed a ban on hunting. In my constituency—I also defer to your opinion on such matters, Madam Speaker—there are seven packs of hounds and the local hunts provide a social life and dances, and are an integral part of the community, but the hon. Member for Leicester, East wants to ban them. In contrast, my hon. Friend the Minister produced some good ideas, and showed his firm commitment to the countryside, and his understanding that it is not a plaything for urban people, but predominantly a place where people work and live.
The countryside has manifest problems. First, there is far too much bureaucracy. Interestingly, my county of Northumberland has a population of just over 300,000, but it has no fewer than six district councils, one county council and one national park with planning powers. Now, the hon. Member for Leicester, East wants to add a regional development agency and the north of England assembly, on which the Labour party is especially keen. The poor Northumbrians would sink under that weight of bureaucracy.
The countryside already has too much bureaucracy. There are Ministries, organisations such as the Countryside Commission, English Nature and English Heritage, which are all valuable in their way, countless protection agencies, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and animal welfare organisations, such as the League against Cruel Sports and others that want to stop us enjoying ourselves. The countryside is over-managed and, in many respects, over-governed.
I believe that the environmentally sensitive areas programme has been successful, but it gives rise to a problem. The danger is that the ESAs create environmental ghettos in parts of the countryside. Jobs inside the ESAs are slowly being destroyed. As farmers in those areas get more funds for not doing various things on their farms, so they have more money to spend renting grazing land in countryside belonging to other farmers who do not get the benefit of such grants. That is causing serious problems on the edges of the ESAs.
People who have listened to this debate have had a warning about the kind of countryside that there would be if the Labour party were in power—one run by urban busybodies wanting to tell rural people how to live their lives. If we ever had a Labour Government it would be a case not of merry England, but of a very dreary countryside indeed.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) for keeping his remarks so short.
Although I am a Scot, I have the privilege of representing a Hampshire constituency which is the epitome of what rural England is all about—beautiful, vibrant, productive, historic, well conserved, but probably over-gentrified by townspeople who have come to live there. It is certainly facing enormous pressures from nearby conurbations and from the spread of the concrete jungle.
I have an interest to declare, as a farmer. I get a slice of my income, and probably of my losses, from farming. I am also a member of the National Farmers Union, of the Country Landowners Association and of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I acknowledge that there can be conflicts between the former and the latter. They may not always march in step, but they march towards the same objective: a viable rural economy. That is how they will achieve what they both want, and perhaps people like me can be a bridge between the organisations.
Rural England is not just fields, woods, valleys and rivers. It is nearly a quarter of the nation's resident population. They live there, but they do not all work there. This evening, I shall try to suggest one or two items that

the Government should consider for their forthcoming White Paper. That paper is timely, because another debate is under way about the common agricultural policy—the so-called CAP 3. It has been interesting to hear what hon. Members have to say about it this evening.
I hope that CAP 3 will be much more about the whole rural economy, not just about agriculture. Farmers and landowners are not only responsible for our food production; they are also the stewards of the nation's land and as such they must remain the focus of countryside policy. Farming remains the dominant land use in rural areas. CAP 3 must embrace agriculture but must also have clear objectives for the rural environment and for rural social economies. A sustainable rural policy for the United Kingdom must be the objective for CAP 3. In that way, we shall get a better return from the European Union and from the Commission than we have hitherto enjoyed.
Agriculture has already moved closer to the marketplace, but I should like it to reduce still further its reliance on supply control, and on subsidy payments. As a fanner I am only too well aware that my activities are already subject to many environmental regulations, because of the impact of agriculture on the environment, but I resent the compulsion of what is known as cross-compliance, which attaches conditions to subsidies or grants under the CAP.
For example, the small print on the back of the IACS—integrated administration and control system—forms says that farmers will receive no set-aside payments unless, for instance, they retain ponds and stone walls. The CAP insists on retention only: there is nothing to help with maintenance. It would be better to have separate, positive incentives for landowners and managers to maintain ponds and walls, and the moss roads to which the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) referred, so as to deliver the clean, attractive countryside, rich in wildlife, historic features and recreational opportunities, that we all want. At present, only 1 per cent. of last year's CAP budget of 36.5 billion ecu was devoted to agri-environment measures.
What about the workers in the countryside? Only a small proportion of that growing quarter of the nation's population who live in the countryside actually works there. Structural changes in farming have radically reduced the agricultural work force, while improved transport has extended from the cities the distances that people are now able to commute. Twenty years ago, only people like Sir Cedric Brown could commute to London from my home town. Now, the car park at the station holds 200 commuters' cars. Over the past decade, both population and employment have grown faster in rural areas than in urban areas, in spite of poor local communications and services, and higher infrastructure costs.
What about diversification? That is the way in which we shall retain the viability of our rural economies. My accountant constantly reminds me that the current tax rules are hideously complex and a real deterrent to farmers and landowners who wish to diversify. Two years ago, the Country Landowners Association proposed the idea of the rural business unit, which would allow all those commercial activities traditionally associated with a rural estate, with those that are being integrated, to be assessed as one trading unit for tax purposes. That is something that my right hon. and learned Friend the


Chancellor really should look at, because it would not only help the rural economy, but could also increase his tax revenues.
For most people, the countryside will be seen as a place for recreation, and therefore good access is essential. We are all pleased to see what has already been done to make the countryside easier to enter and enjoy for those who are welcome, and more difficult to invade for those who are not.
Forestry has been mentioned. I am sorry that it will not be part of the White Paper. It took a terrible knock in the 1988 Budget. We have now seen a welcome trend towards broadleaf woodlands rather than conifers, thanks to the Government's woodland grants schemes, but there is a need to increase our woodland cover and also manage our existing woodland better than we are doing. We must look again at the tax provisions for woodland owners and forestry. If we do not, although we may well continue to see an increase in woodland planting, we may see less proper maintenance of existing woodlands, and we want them to be maintained so that they can be enjoyed in the way that we are accustomed to.
It is unlikely that we would have much woodland were it not for countryside sports, which have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members this evening. It would be a dreadful omission if, during a debate on rural England, we did not mention the financial and amenity benefits of field sports. The Cobham report, sponsored by the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports and updated three years ago, estimates that field sports generate £2.7 billion-worth of business and give recreation to more than 5 million people, of whom some 3.9 million are fishermen. Perhaps that is the only reason why the Labour party supports fishing. Field sports are estimated to support some 65,000 jobs. They improve access to the countryside. Those who manage them help to keep Britain beautiful and rich in wildlife, and they also assist in maintaining employment in both urban and rural areas.
There is no doubt that, if one is to be able to diversify out of agriculture, the planning process must make it possible. At present, I do not believe that the development control system can do that. We must see a proper balance. I wish that other counties would take an example from Hampshire, which some time ago set up its Committee for Rural Hampshire, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord the Earl of Selborne, to address the problems of reaching balanced decisions on planning matters.
The committee's membership is drawn from councils at all levels—county, district and parish, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Hampshire Council of Community Service, the Hampshire Wildlife Trust, MAFF, the National Farmers Union and the Rural Development Commission. It brings together all those bodies to
promote a just and fair balance in the use and management of Hampshire's rural resources and sustain the well-being of balanced rural communities.
It will make a submission on what it thinks should go in the White Paper. It will be extremely valuable. If only other counties around the country had similar committees, it would be extremely useful.
Much has been said about the countryside, but one important subject that has not been touched on is rural crime. I am glad to see farm watch schemes springing up

everywhere, as criminals go for what they imagine will be easy pickings in the countryside. We have some schemes around us.
I have put down a few markers for CAP 3, which is crucial and should be part of what is considered within the rural White Paper. I particularly welcome the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, which we shall be debating on Monday week and I look forward to the levelling of the European playing field.
It is with some authority that I can say that British farmers and landowners, together with many other people, will ensure that the rural England remains not only economically viable but the green and pleasant land that we want to see.

Mr. Elliot Morley: This has been an important debate. I am only sorry that many of my colleagues from rural constituencies in the north of England have had to return home tonight because of the deplorable weather conditions of which the Minister will be aware.
However, they have made it clear that they give me their full support, along with those of my hon. Friends who are here, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) who made an excellent contribution on behalf of his constituents. Not all Opposition Members can at cord to live full-time in London, so they go home to their constituencies as soon as they can.
In Britain, 23 per cent. of the population live in rural England. When it comes to the way in which they are treated, they sometimes rightly think that they are the forgotten people. Many live in what some Conservative Members might regard as Conservative fiefdoms, but a great deal of good that has done them. We have seen their response to that in the verdicts delivered by local people in the recent county council elections.
Many British people have the same needs wherever they live, but the rural areas result in different emphases and circumstances. As has been said by some hon. Members tonight, not everything in the country is rosy. For example, 8.1 per cent. of the rural population is over 75—a higher percentage than in urban areas.
The elderly have particular needs. For example, they rely on rural sub-post offices. Despite what has been said today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that it is still his intention to privatise the Post Office. The privatisation of the Post Office is bound to affect the range of services provided by sub-post offices.
Even now, the move to have pensions paid directly into bank accounts is affecting the viability of many sub-post offices.There is no doubt that a privatised Post Office would ultimately lead to two-tier pricing for postal services, with higher charges for those who live in rural communities.
Some Conservative Members might say that that guarantees have been given and that there will be protection in law for single pricing for the postal service, but similar guarantees were given with regard to single pricing for the delivery of gas. That is no longer the case. The further away one lives from the points of entry in Britain, the higher the gas charge will be.
With regard to health, 74 per cent. of parishes have no general practitioner practices to which they need access.
Transport has been mentioned. The deregulation of buses has been a disaster for country areas. My village used to have an early morning work service going into the town. Now, some people who live in villages in my constituency are asked when they go for a job interview whether they have a car. Employers want to ensure that they can get into work. They do not have a car because they do not have a job and cannot buy one. They cannot get into work because there is no bus service. There is no bus service so they cannot get a job. That is the situation in many rural villages.
What new services there have been as a result of deregulation have not been extra services on Sundays or services to the more remote areas. They have been provided by the odd bloke in the second-hand coach with a bit of cardboard in the windscreen saying where he is going.

Mr. Atkins: Nonsense.

Mr. Morley: I see that in the rural areas in my constituency. Such people do not provide a comprehensive service; they move in on the peaks. Many long-standing small private operators who have provided a good service should not have to face such unfair competition.
A quarter of all women living in rural areas have no access to a car, and 73 per cent. of parishes have no bus service. I see no Government policies to help that.
The trains are under threat. I do not believe that the rural train service in my constituency will survive if British Rail is privatised. I hope that the Government will see sense in the matter and recognise the feeling of people who live in rural areas who do not want to see British Rail privatised and who fear for the future.
I was amazed by the comments of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who said that there were enough empty homes to meet the needs of the homeless and that Government policies would help. Government policy, however, has moved towards market rents, which are not much different from mortgage repayments in many parts of the country. If people cannot make mortgage repayments, they can hardly pay market rents. The Government have accepted that in recognising the increasing cost of housing benefit, which they intend to cut, placing more strain on those who must find the shortfall. Moreover, those who lose their jobs will no longer receive as much mortgage support, which will increase homelessness and other problems.
A large proportion of people living in rural areas are self-employed-16.6 per cent.—and there is a wide variation in unemployment statistics. Wages tend to be lower in the country: 55 per cent. of workers in agriculture, forestry and fishing earn less than £200 a week. A minimum wage policy would therefore be very welcome in rural areas.
Low pay means that affordable housing is needed. People are being priced out of rural areas; they are being forced to leave the villages for the towns. Between 1990 and 1993, only 8,800 public sector homes were provided

in rural areas, meeting only 11 per cent. of housing need. The Housing Corporation target in 1994 was 1,850 new homes, 6 per cent. of the total need.
The right to buy has been a disaster in rural areas. Even Glanford borough council, in my constituency—which is Conservative-controlled—has complained bitterly about what it has done in the countryside, removing affordable homes and not giving local councils, whether Labour or Conservative, an opportunity to replace them because of Government restrictions. Some members of Conservative local authorities, however, do not recognise the problem. When challenged about homelessness, Glanford borough council's Tory housing chairman said that there was no homelessness in the area: he had asked persistently for the names and addresses of those involved, and no one had been able to give them to him.
In 1992–93, 46,270 adults and children were accepted as homeless. In January 1993, 4,542 families were in temporary accommodation. No one can deny that there are positive aspects of living in the community; it is often a nice place in which to live. As someone who lives in a village, I feel that the greatest advantage is the strength of the local community, shown in community action and village hall committees. I am proud to have played a modest part in the provision of a village hall in my own community. Good work is also done by parish and town councils, women's institutes, community councils, Action for Communities in Rural England and the Coalfields Communities Campaign. There is huge support for the voluntary sector—more than £20 billion worth, according to an estimate by the Centre for Policy Studies.
Football and other sporting clubs, such as Winterton Rangers, have applied for rate relief. As the Minister will know, it is discretionary. Winterton Rangers complained to the ombudsman about Glanford borough council, and the ombudsman criticised the council—finterruption.1 As the Minister suggests, it is a local authority decision, but he should realise that some borough councils—such as Scunthorpe—give 100 per cent. rate relief, while others such as Glanford are very difficult about it. Community organisations are being treated unfairly, and 1 hope that the Government will do something about it.
The problem may, in fact, be solved. Glanford and Scunthorpe are being amalgamated along with part of Boothferry, to form a new authority. The difference in political control will affect the situation, and I hope that all the rural football clubs who want their rate relief will support the establishment of a Labour-controlled North Lincolnshire authority. That will certainly provide better quality services.
There is no point in trying to duck the issue of Government policy towards the shire counties. We have heard about the problems of rural schools. Many shire counties have done badly out of the standard spending assessment calculation. A great deal of money has been shifted to the south-east, so it is little wonder that many rural schools are under threat. Labour-controlled councils, such as that in Humberside, have an excellent record of providing nursery facilities and of supporting tiny rural schools in my constituency. I doubt whether those schools would survive under any other political control.
Under Nicholas Ridley there was a huge growth in out-of-town planning and that had an impact on village and town shops. It will be said that people have a right to go to supermarkets and that is a fair point, but there should be balanced out-of-town development and a central


balance, and the impact that too much out-of-town development can have on rural shops and small towns and their centres must be recognised. We are currently experiencing that impact and there is a need for greater awareness. I hope that the Minister will confirm that planning systems within strong structural plans will be the principal future means of resolving land use conflicts. I hope he will recognise that planning in particular should meet local needs and should not be market driven.
We need a sensible roads policy, but if road building is reduced—and there are arguments for that—people must be provided with an alternative, and that must be public transport. Policies such as the privatisation of the railways and bus deregulation will not provide that alternative. Bus deregulation has led to higher fares, fewer services and a falling number of passengers.
Agriculture has an important influence on the countryside. Sadly, only about 3 per cent. of the population are employed in agriculture, and that percentage is declining. Between 1987 and 1998, it is projected that 38,000 full-time agricultural workers will be made redundant. In that period 20,000 farmers will leave farming. We must meet that challenge and the impact that it will have on the rural economy.
We must tackle the issue of the common agricultural policy which urgently needs reform. I pay tribute to the National Farmers Union, which produced an excellent document entitled "Real Choices", for recognising these changes and challenges. Support for agriculture has an important part to play in terms of agri-environment policy. We must support new entrants even in a declining market.
I am sure that the Minister has read, as I have, the 1993 report on agriculture in the European Union which contains some interesting statistics. For example, Britain is at the bottom of the European league for support given to entrants to farming. We are even below Luxembourg. Support has declined from 159,000 ecu in 1991 to 127,000 ecu. We should compare that with France, which supported new entrants to the tune of 100 million ecu. That is a considerable difference.
I recognise the impact of farming on the landscape and on recreation and leisure, nature conservation and jobs. There must be a balance between those, and schemes such as those for set-aside are especially important in that regard. The countryside is important to everyone in England and everyone pays for supporting it through taxes, the common agricultural policy and other schemes. The importance of tourism and recreation in supporting the countryside must not be underestimated.
There is great scope for agricultural reform that will support new access and diversification. We must support farmers in adapting farm buildings so that they can be used for businesses such as farm shops which sell everything from meat to ice cream.
The right to roam has been mentioned. I am strongly in favour of what most people see as a popular and sensible policy which applies only to uncultivated and common land. It is unacceptable for people such as the Duke of Westminster, who owns large areas of Bowland, to restrict access for millions of responsible people who simply want to walk on the land. There is no point in the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) saying that that would destroy nature conservation when I know that many birds, such as the hen harrier, are being illegally destroyed in that

area by gamekeepers. When there is better nature conservation, I might have more sympathy with restricting access.
Conservation is an important issue, but time does not allow me to deal with it now. Indeed, it is worthy of a debate in its own right. The Minister will have seen the recent report called "The Bio-Diversity Challenge", produced by the Butterfly Conservation Group, Friends of the Earth, Plant Life, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trust and the World Wide Fund for Nature. I know that he will welcome it, as I do. I hope that he recognises the targets set in the report as being achievable and important. Above all, I hope that he recognises that rural policy needs an integrated and balanced approach. All Government policies are relevant to both rural and urban areas and many of our people in both those communities feel that the Government have failed them miserably.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): As my hon. Friend the Minister explained at the beginning of the debate, it has come at an opportune time. It is important that at the start of an exercise such as the production of a White Paper we establish the views of all those with an interest and identify the issues that are important to them. It has been helpful to hear the views of hon. Members tonight, especially those who represent truly rural constituencies. They have spoken with the depth of knowledge that that representation brings to them.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene at this early stage of her remarks, especially with the short time that is available to her. Does she agree that the speech that we heard for 26 minutes from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was a diatribe of nothing but ignorance and prejudice? Does she further agree that his absence from the Chamber during the winding-up speeches is discourteous not only to the House but to the rural residents of Leicestershire and the country?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I had intended to draw attention to the fact that the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was based on his experience of travelling on and looking through the windows of InterCity trains at night. Speaking as a truly rural Member representing a constituency in the heart of Devon, I can tell him that people there would have sussed him out in a couple of minutes. He certainly does not have any real muck on his boots at home. In fact, I would be surprised if he even possessed a pair of boots. His knowledge of working life in the rural communities is somewhat suspect. However, he made a good try, given the fact that behind him were the massed ranks of Labour Members who show great interest in rural communities and the important issues that the House has discussed tonight.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was the one token representative of the Liberal Democrat party, which trumpets its support for and knowledge of rural life throughout the country. However, even the hon. Gentleman is not here for the end of the debate.

Mr. David Faber: My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the fairly typical absence of the Liberal


Democratic spokesman for the wind-up of the debate. Some of us have sat through the debate but not had an opportunity to speak, so we consider that to be a gross discourtesy.
Had the hon. Gentleman stayed, he might have had an opportunity to comment on the issue of rural schools, which he has said are so important to the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps he could have told us why, last Thursday evening, Liberal Democratic councillors in my constituency went around a village with a small school threatened with closure promising that the school would be safe in their hands, yet the next morning they voted with the Labour group to close the school. Only the Conservative group opposed it.

Mrs. Browning: I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will be glad that he has put that fact on the record. As we all know, the difficulty with the Liberal Democrats is that they say what people want to hear, but when they go to another area or when they have an opportunity to vote they speak or vote in a different way. The rural areas have come to understand their tactics.
We welcome the fact not only that the White Paper will be produced for England, but that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced today that the Scottish Office will embark upon a similar procedure for Scotland. I know from conversation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that the Welsh Office is also showing great interest and has done some work in that area.
Many Conservative Members made significant speeches, talking with the knowledge of the issues that affect their constituents in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), speaking not only as a rural Member of Parliament, but with the background knowledge that he gained as a Minister, raised many issues appertaining to his constituency, such as the military, housing, law and order, special constables, the pattern of agriculture, tenancy and derelict land.
All those issues are for debate and discussion. The Government hope that hon. Members who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, are happy that the White Paper, when it is produced, will not simply be an introspective look at what is going on. It will be a way of taking forward and fashioning policy.
That is in stark contrast to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who again played the politics of fear with post offices, and other policies that affect people in rural areas, who are genuinely worried when the facts are not put to them, and when they are frightened into thinking that somehow they will be deprived of their post offices and other facilities. Playing the politics of fear is cynical. Many hon. Members mentioned that many people in rural areas are vulnerable and elderly. That tactic is especially deplorable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) raised many issues. I can give him some positive answers to the specific issues that he raised. One concerned the case of Colonel Owen. I assure him that the guidelines on purchasing property will be amended following the Court of Appeal judgment. The matter is in hand, and I hope that he will be reassured.
so far, no planning application has been made to Solihull metropolitan borough council to build a new football stadium in the green belt. I am aware, however, that the matter has been discussed. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden heard hon. Members raise other issues, and I hope that he will allow me to pursue them.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthal I) raised many issues, but especially referred to several points in planning policy guidance note 2, which we welcome. I am grateful for the support that he gave to it. He raised specific issues and I assure him that I will draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, who will write to him. They are technical and detailed and I cannot cover them all this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), again speaking with the knowledge of a rural Member, raised the issue of CAP 3. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister has asked a panel of people to consider specifically the future of the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend was especially anxious that environmental issues should be taken into account in fashioning the future of CAP. I assure him that the panel that has been appointed by my right hon. Friend will consider that.
Many hon. Members said that agriculture is still at the heart of rural life, although we understand the changes that agriculture has undergone. It is important, both for this country and for our role in the European Community, that we press on with reform of CAP and that we get it right. The introduction of new member states, many of which expect to enter the Community by the year 2000, will pose a great challenge to the CAP. That policy would not bear the additional costs and strains of widening the Community, although we support that widening.
I assure hon. Members that we want to influence our European partners so that the CAP will be reformed. We do not always have the support of all our partners, which is needed, but it is no good just saying that reform must be introduced. We must tell our partners how we believe it should be done and we should set out a strategy. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Minister has formed the committee, which I hope will report with a positive and practical structure for reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Watersicle mentioned his support for rural business units. The House will be aware that the Bunbury report was presented to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The issues are being dealt with and they have been discussed. I am sympathetic to suggestions for rationalisation of rural taxation, but those are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend.
I am grateful to the truly rural hon. Members who did not allow a little snow to prevent them from being here this evening. Those of us who live in rural areas are not put off by the elements; we get on with life just the same. I am grateful for their contributions, and I am sure that the White Paper will benefit from the suggestions that we have heard tonight.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Great Barr Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

10 pm

Mr. Bruce George: I represent an urban constituency. Much has been said today about the problems of rural areas, but people living in metropolitan areas such as mine like a little rural idyll and it has been provided for us thanks to the wisdom of the Victorians, who gave us parks, and the wisdom of civil servants and politicians in the 1930s and 1950s who gave us the green belt. I wish to retain the green belt in my area for the benefit not of property speculators but of the citizenry of Walsall, Birmingham and Sandwell.
Adjournment debates are literally local lotteries. The timing of this Adjournment debate is most fortuitous and I am grateful to the failure of the law of averages which permitted me to speak tonight. There are three reasons why the debate is fortuitous. First, a formal application has just been submitted to Walsall council by West Midlands regional health authority for
the erection of 98 Dwellings, Country Park, Roads and associated structures".
I understand that the project is to be advertised in the press tomorrow. The advertisement will show that it is a departure from the Walsall unitary plan adopted only in December, but more about that later.
Secondly, the debate is fortuitous because it is just three days since the publication by the Department of the Environment of planning policy guidance note 2 on green belts, which I generally endorse. Thirdly, this is the week of the launch of a campaign by the Great Barr Hall action committee against the West Midlands regional health authority application. I co-founded the organisation in December 1987 after a previous fright for people living in the area.
There is, in fact, a fourth reason why tonight's debate is fortuitous. Today's debate on the future of rural England has a relevance for people living in urban areas. If the Minister ever travels north along the M6—or, preferably, takes the train—I hope that he will make a detour to visit the area that I am talking about. If he comes, I shall take him to the top of Barr beacon. If he looks down to the south, he will see the urban centre of Birmingham which was once described as a "little hamlet near Walsalle". In front of him he will see Sandwell, Dudley and, to the north, Walsall. In the middle of that metropolitan urban area is an oasis provided by farsighted politicians and civil servants.
This enormous site of 300 acres comprises three sections, one being St. Margaret's hospital for the mentally handicapped which is owned by the West Midlands regional health authority. It is scheduled to close in 1997. The site also comprises Great Barr hall, its chapel and grounds. It is a grade II star listed building from the late 1770s on a site that goes back deep into medieval history. It is built in the Strawberry hill gothick style and is a rare example associated with Joseph Scott. The grounds were designed by Humphrey Repton in collaboration with John Nash. The hall is one of only four examples of its type in the country.
It was a meeting place of the world-famous 18th century Lunar Society and of scientists and entrepreneurs such as Matthew Boulton, James Watt, Joseph Priestley,

Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood. They were the harbingers of the industrial revolution and the building served as a clearing house for the ideas that transformed this country and the world. It is therefore of great historic and architectural significance.
The hall and grounds were shamefully sold by the regional health authority in 1988 for £650,000 to a so-called financial adviser. I will not abuse parliamentary privilege by describing him in the way in which he should be described. I shall merely refer to him in Private Eye terms as a man with an uneven or chequered business career.
That man purchased the job lot, not for the purposes of preservation and conservation, but as a speculative development with the help of the regional health authority. He wanted to make himself wealthy and the former chairman of the regional health authority must accept ultimate responsibility for the shameful sale. The property is now in the hands of the official receiver Cork Gully and the Midland bank owns the freehold. I am afraid that many people have been left with their fingers severely burnt.
The third part of the site is away from St. Margaret's hospital; 89 acres of land south-west of Chapel lane, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who supports everything that I say. The land is north of Sutton's drive, and it includes a road of 100 m. Within that acreage lies the male homes complex of the hospital. It is in structural order. It is not derelict, and could be re-used in line with the appropriate green belt policies.
The proposal which I am opposing most strenuously is to build 98 domestic dwellings. The planning history of the site is profoundly unsatisfactory. There have been previous attempts to demolish Great Barr hall. Birmingham regional health authority applied in 1974 to demolish the hall. In 1976, Walsall planning committee approved an application to demolish the hall and chapel.
Now, the hall is boarded up. It is in danger, in a few years, of being worthy of nothing more than a bulldozer, and it would be criminal to allow that to happen. I appeal to the Minister to assist the restoration of this fine building to some form of acceptable use.
In 1991, the regional health authority made four planning applications to develop the male homes complex site to build houses and to build an estate of offices. It was totally inappropriate under the planning law then and it still is under the present guidelines that have been issued.
This large site is the most heavily protected in the west midlands. It falls in the green belt, Sandwell green wedge, Great Barr conservation area, Beacon regional park and the English Heritage gardens register, it has a grade II star listed building and, as I said, it contains a protected nature reserve.
My interest in the site goes back many years. I have submitted evidence to inspectors, given written evidence, made oral presentations and written numerous letters as, no doubt, the Minister's files will testify. I was very encouraged by a letter that I received in 1994 from the Minister's colleague, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), then Environment Minister. He wrote:
However, the Secretary of State may well be involved at a later stage when precise proposals have been put to the Council and their attitude is known. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council has assured the Government Office for the West Midlands that if it


decides to approve the proposals it will submit them as departures from the development plan. If and when this occurs I will need to take a hard look at the applications for the Green Belt amongst other matters. As part of this, I would emphasise that we would undertake a very thorough assessment of the overall package of proposals for the site.
I am also very encouraged by documents which have been issued recently—PPG2 on the green belt in January 1995 and PPG15 on planning and the historic environment in September 1994. I will not go into any great detail of what they contain, but I ask the Minister to look especially at paragraph 4.26 of PPG15, which is very important to our case.
PPG2, issued only this week, almost completely vindicates my argument. I believe that when Walsall council looks at it, it may approve of what I am saying. Paragraph 2.6 says:
detailed Green Belt boundaries defined in adopted local plans or earlier approved development plans should be altered only exceptionally. Detailed boundaries should not be altered or development allowed merely because the land has become derelict.
The section headed "Control over development" and paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 contain a restatement of my arguments. At C.11, it states:
Suitable re-use is to be preferred to redevelopment.
The male homes complex is capable for re-use in line, one hopes, with planning guidance. The unitary development plan, which was approved only very recently, again vindicates the argument. An inspector said that he wanted to see the site viewed in its totality. He said:
It is perhaps, this diffuseness of policies which belies the importance of the Great Barr Hall and Estate. That it is important in a Borough wide context is without doubt in spite of the fact that public access to it is limited. Its combination of characteristics, its size, the variety and quality of its landscape and buildings, the wild life habitats and its proximity to densely built-up urban areas make it worthy of the prominence it has been given in the urban development plan.
However, the inspector wants it to be seen in its totality and not in little bits, which is what is happening now. Walsall declined to accept some of the inspector's recommendations. To my amazement, its version appeared in the document that was finally published and that is to my regret.
Walsall refused to accept the recommendations and the plan was adopted without the recommendations of Mr. Williams, the inspector. My final endorsement of Government policy—this will be detrimental to my relationship with my constituency party, so I hope no one finds out about it—relates to the document entitled, "Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands", which states at paragraph 10.3:
Detailed Green Belt boundaries should be altered only exceptionally, and as a last resort.
It states that housing must be found at locations elsewhere and it refers to a list of priorities where housing is to be located. I cannot say, and I defy anyone to say, that the site is necessary for the building of houses. Other sites must be exploited first.
Walsall council's record with regard to defending the green belt is far from scintillating, but it is not one of total indifference. I appeal to the council to consider the

application made by the West Midlands regional health authority very carefully, and I hope that its views will concur with mine.
The regional health authority's goal is to pick up a few million pieces of silver and then run like Mr. Worth, the so-called financial adviser. The way in which Mr. Worth proceeded is not much different from the way in which the regional health authority is proceeding.
We want to stop the development going ahead because, if it is not stopped, the regional health authority will see a green light and will build elsewhere on land that it already holds. There are more footprints in St. Margaret's hospital than in a Kenyan national park. The development would be exploited and there would be far more damaging applications in the next few years. West Midlands regional health authority is a danger.
The "listening bank", part of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which knows a thing or two about building in confined spaces, quite rightly wishes to realise its assets. However, its aims are not for conservation or concern for the land. The commercial imperative is overwhelming.
I hope that I have not appeared to be rather negative, although I am sure that I have. I want that fine land to be properly utilised in line with Government policy. The scope for building on the land and for developing it is not limitless, but it must be used properly. I hope that it will be properly utilised in the next few years. I look to the Minister and to his Department to protect the land becauseI cannot look to the health authority and—I hope that I am wrong in this regard—I cannot look automatically to Walsall council to provide the protection that the land so richly deserves.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have heard such support for the Government's planning policy this evening that it is surprising that it did not come from Conservative Members. Nevertheless, I must admit that I always look forward to contributions from the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He always approaches even the most difficult subjects with a touch of humour and more than a little journalistic licence. The subject of the debate is, of course, of considerable concern to the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and many neighbouring hon. Members and their constituents.
It is no exaggeration to say that Walsall is not over-endowed with properties and parklands of great historical and architectural interest. That adds, of course, to the importance of Great Barr hall, its chapel and surrounding and adjacent parklands, as outlined this evening. The fact that the chapel was never consecrated and has been used as a billiard room may appeal to the hon. Gentleman's sense of humour. As the hon. Gentleman has made quite clear, the areas under discussion this evening are in several parts and several ownerships—I shall concentrate on two—and subject to two different planning applications.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, those areas obviously interrelate with each other in the impact of one upon the other, and both are included within the confirmed green belt. To that we must add the fact that the hall is a grade II listed building and therefore of great interest to English Heritage. As the hon. Gentleman is abundantly aware, any


potential or aspiring developer must take note of the implications that will be of considerable interest to English Heritage, the local planning authority, and, of course, ultimately, the Department of the Environment. In addition, we all see that area as a valuable stretch of open space in a heavily built-up area, which makes it enormously important to those living in surrounding residential areas.
I shall now refer to Great Barr hall and its surrounding lands. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern at the state of that building, and it is recognised that English Heritage has classified it as seriously at risk. In fact, English Heritage has clearly expressed its extreme concern. The hall has been empty since the 1970s, and it has been subjected to fires, vandalism and structural problems. I understand that much of the interior timberwork is affected by dry rot, and a restoration job running into millions of pounds is obviously urgently required. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can urge the borough to look again at the problem and to redouble its efforts to ensure that at least the building does not deteriorate further.
Of course, the sooner a long-term future for the hall is secured, the better. As the hon. Gentleman and I are aware, for some years development proposals for the hall have been discussed by the local authorities, the receivers and English Heritage. English Heritage has accepted the need for some enabling development to offset the high cost of repairs to the hall, but of course that must be balanced against the need to avoid further damage to the landscape and, if possible, to improve and reinstate the parkland setting of the building.
The most recent planning application for the hall and grounds was submitted about two years ago. It included the conversion of the hall for office and leisure purposes and the erection of an office building within the curtilage of the hall on land presently occupied by wartime agricultural buildings. English Heritage has given its views on the application to Walsall council, and it has suggested detailed amendments to the work on the hall and its extension.
English Heritage has also recorded its objection to the planned building within the curtilage. That building, it believes, should be smaller and differently designed. The borough, in response, has written to the applicants asking for more information. The response is still awaited. Equally, any application will be of potential interest to the Department, as has been mentioned, in the light of the recently tightened PPG2 relating to the green belt, and the consideration of English Heritage, particularly if it continues to express concern.
We must recognise that a balance must be struck between encouraging a viable use of the hall and the safeguarding of its essential character. The obvious answer, therefore, is that real progress must be made through detailed negotiations between the parties, locally.
The same concerns apply to the park, which, as has been mentioned, is classified grade II. In PPG15, which has also been mentioned, the Government have emphasised the need to protect registered parks and gardens in determining planning applications. As the hon. Gentleman might be aware, a golf course is proposed on the parkland. Although English Heritage generally regards golf courses as inappropriate, it believes, exceptionally, that a golf course may be acceptable, provided that it is designed on parkland principles. That re-emphasises the need for detailed negotiations between the parties to find an acceptable scheme. As a long-stop, the Secretary of State has reserve powers, especially in this case, as the land is within the green belt.
The adjacent site has been given the interesting name of the "male homes" land. Demolition of the buildings, to which English Heritage had no objection, will take place soon, and a planning application for a country park and 89 homes—I understand that that, rather than 98, is the figure; perhaps someone has dyslexia—has just been submitted. The submission is with the local authority, and obviously it is at an early stage.
The local authority has agreed that if it is minded to approve, it will definitely refer the application to the Department of the Environment before approval. In view of the complications that is, of course, to be expected. Any development will have to take account of PPG2, which has recently been tightened, including the section relating to a proposal to increase floor area in comparison with that occupied by the properties demolished.
We must recognise that the site is within a conservation area. In addition, English Heritage will be especially concerned about the impact of the development because of its close proximity to Great Barr hall and its parklands; clearly, although there are two applications relating to two sites under separate ownership, they are closely interrelated and extremely complex.
Nevertheless, we must bear in mind the importance of the restoration of the hall and the maintenance of the parkland. Mindless opposition—I make no accusation here—to change on the estate will hinder not only the long-term restoration of the hall and the parkland but the search for an acceptable solution for the redundant hospital. Obviously, the search for the best solution is best carried out by those on the ground, who have detailed local responsibilities and knowledge.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, while he is watching closely over one shoulder of those responsible, the Government, conscious of their responsibilities for the green belt, for historic buildings and the historic parkland and for the overall situation, are looking closely over the other.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.